The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
Why should it surprise us to find that there are many stories suggesting close relationship between the divine ('gods") and humans or amazing ways in which the divine has been expressed through human acts/lives? Why should this imply that the life of Jesus is not unique? Most of those other stories are mostly unknown throughout the world while the Christian story has widespread appeal. Why didn't the ancient pagans, people who knew the mythical stories much better than we do, see Christianity as nothing more than a rehash of their own beliefs? I suggest it is because, despite similarities, there were radical differences that made Christianity far more appealing and fulfilling than the myths.Maybe because they would be killed for not believing? That would be a good incentive. The Crusades proved that.
This reply is simply historically false. Christianity was not legalized in the Roman Empire until the reign of Constantine in the 4th century AD. Prior to AD 313, Christianity was illegal and there were frequent persecutions as well as inferior social standing for Christians prior to that time. It was during the centuries that Christianity was persecuted and offered no social/political advantages that it captivated the pagan world. Based on all we know from the early Christian centuries, the Christians were completely opposed to the use of violence. It was not until Christians had positions of political power that they began to theorize about how a Christian is supposed to use political force in order to maintain social stability in a way that is consistent with Christian values. Back to the first few Christian centuries, there were so many Christians by the time of Constantine that he decided that it was more advantageous for Rome to accept Christianity than to continue fighting against it. So my original points still stand. Concerning the Crusades, these were during the Middle Ages (long after the time-period I had in mind). To be fair, you should also point out that the Crusades were a response of Christian Europe against the Muslims that had conquered previously Christian holy places. I'm not interested in defending everything done by Crusaders (no more than an atheist would want to defend everything done by atheists) but I do think the Crusades have become one of those things thrown around by people who want to discredit Christianity but few ever take the time to really study the historical situation that gave rise to them.0 -
The Epic of Gilgamesh has many parts that parallel the Bible including the Great Flood, the story of Adam and Eve, etc but was written thousands of years before Christ was reportedly born. Interesting.
I'm not sure what is so interesting about your observations. Everyone already knew that the Old Testament was written long before the time of Jesus and the Old Testament is where you find the stories you mentioned. No Christian that I know of ever claimed the story of the Flood or Adam and Eve appears after the coming of Jesus. Concerning the similarities between the stories of Gilgamesh and the book of Genesis in the Bible, I encourage everyone to read the two sources and see the vast differences in the conception of God, the human person, morality, etc. The writer of Genesis may well have been familiar with stories from ancient Babylon and elsewhere and re-wrote those accounts to reflect a very different view of reality. In other words, Genesis may be an "apologetic" work that uses the words and imagery of other sources in order to subvert those stories and show a very different world-view. With respect to the Flood, there are so many ancient sources that mention a vast flood that many historians think a true memory of the historical past is reflected in these stories. It shouldn't surprise us that the Bible includes stories that others used if those stories give true insight into the past.0 -
I'm never surprised when people from millenia ago turn out to have made a mistake.
We don't know what year Christ may have been born, so how can we accurately know it's been 2011 years?
It's just a cultural way of keeping a calendar. Not everyone even uses it. And it's changed numerous times.
I am in no way disputing that there were followers of Christ, referred to in historic writings as Christians. The theory I've read is that it's a mistranslation of "nice people". I've read that who we refer to as Jesus Christ may have been an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua Ben Yosef. One thing I know based simply on having a brain is that at the very least the dude was not blonde with blue eyes and a button nose.
So we don't know when he was born, when he died, what his name was or what he looked like. But everyone's so sure he exists and thinks we should base our lives on him. Sorry. Not for me.
We have far more information about Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua ben Yosef just means Jesus, Son of Joseph, nothing all that surprising there) than about virtually any other person of antiquity. The New Testament includes 27 documents written by people who either had direct contact with Jesus or were contemporaries of those who did. If you apply the normal standards of historical investigation to the New Testament documents they pass with flying colors. If the evidence and reasons for believing in Jesus were as shallow and inconsequential as you suggest in your brief comments, it is ludicrous to imagine billions of people giving their lives to follow him. I dare say more books have been written about Jesus than anyone else so the data must be far more significant than the largely unknown character you describe.0 -
Well, so what part of the story is true. I mean, I feel like there's plenty of evidence that Christ was man, and that he spoke publicly about his beliefs, and had followers.
There is more proof that Jesus Christ lived and walked the earth than Julius Ceaser.
I don't know if I believe in Jesus and God anymore, but there is proof that the man we believe to be Jesus lived and walked the earth around the time he's claimed to.0 -
Why should it surprise us to find that there are many stories suggesting close relationship between the divine ('gods") and humans or amazing ways in which the divine has been expressed through human acts/lives? Why should this imply that the life of Jesus is not unique? Most of those other stories are mostly unknown throughout the world while the Christian story has widespread appeal. Why didn't the ancient pagans, people who knew the mythical stories much better than we do, see Christianity as nothing more than a rehash of their own beliefs? I suggest it is because, despite similarities, there were radical differences that made Christianity far more appealing and fulfilling than the myths.Maybe because they would be killed for not believing? That would be a good incentive. The Crusades proved that.
This reply is simply historically false. Christianity was not legalized in the Roman Empire until the reign of Constantine in the 4th century AD. Prior to AD 313, Christianity was illegal and there were frequent persecutions as well as inferior social standing for Christians prior to that time. It was during the centuries that Christianity was persecuted and offered no social/political advantages that it captivated the pagan world. Based on all we know from the early Christian centuries, the Christians were completely opposed to the use of violence. It was not until Christians had positions of political power that they began to theorize about how a Christian is supposed to use political force in order to maintain social stability in a way that is consistent with Christian values. Back to the first few Christian centuries, there were so many Christians by the time of Constantine that he decided that it was more advantageous for Rome to accept Christianity than to continue fighting against it. So my original points still stand. Concerning the Crusades, these were during the Middle Ages (long after the time-period I had in mind). To be fair, you should also point out that the Crusades were a response of Christian Europe against the Muslims that had conquered previously Christian holy places. I'm not interested in defending everything done by Crusaders (no more than an atheist would want to defend everything done by atheists) but I do think the Crusades have become one of those things thrown around by people who want to discredit Christianity but few ever take the time to really study the historical situation that gave rise to them.
Another good read is The New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F Madden.0 -
Yet even the apostles (who were apparently the closest) can't really agree on jesus history. In fact 2 of them never even mentioning immaculate conception, which is really what makes jesus "special" compared to other prophets.I'm never surprised when people from millenia ago turn out to have made a mistake.
We don't know what year Christ may have been born, so how can we accurately know it's been 2011 years?
It's just a cultural way of keeping a calendar. Not everyone even uses it. And it's changed numerous times.
I am in no way disputing that there were followers of Christ, referred to in historic writings as Christians. The theory I've read is that it's a mistranslation of "nice people". I've read that who we refer to as Jesus Christ may have been an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua Ben Yosef. One thing I know based simply on having a brain is that at the very least the dude was not blonde with blue eyes and a button nose.
So we don't know when he was born, when he died, what his name was or what he looked like. But everyone's so sure he exists and thinks we should base our lives on him. Sorry. Not for me.
We have far more information about Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua ben Yosef just means Jesus, Son of Joseph, nothing all that surprising there) than about virtually any other person of antiquity. The New Testament includes 27 documents written by people who either had direct contact with Jesus or were contemporaries of those who did. If you apply the normal standards of historical investigation to the New Testament documents they pass with flying colors. If the evidence and reasons for believing in Jesus were as shallow and inconsequential as you suggest in your brief comments, it is ludicrous to imagine billions of people giving their lives to follow him. I dare say more books have been written about Jesus than anyone else so the data must be far more significant than the largely unknown character you describe.
Millions of people follow because that's what they were raised on. I can't think of hardly any religion where the majority of followers are children of followers and so on and so on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.0 -
But appealing back to the title: December 25th birth of jesus celebration. Why? To appeal to and coincide with Saturnilia. Get this the star constellation celebrated is "the house of bread" (Bethlehem). Coincidence. Nah.0
-
Yet even the apostles (who were apparently the closest) can't really agree on jesus history. In fact 2 of them never even mentioning immaculate conception, which is really what makes jesus "special" compared to other prophets.
Millions of people follow because that's what they were raised on. I can't think of hardly any religion where the majority of followers are children of followers and so on and so on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
There are many problems in your few sentences. First, there is the obvious logical fallacy of "argument from silence." Because one writer doesn't mention something doesn't mean he is unaware of it or that it is untrue. (For example, can I validly infer from your email that you are unaware that all the Gospel writers mention the death of Jesus? You don't mention it so I will conclude that you don't know about it. This is obviously faulty reasoning.) Second, I'm assuming you are just uninformed of what the terms mean that you are using. The "immaculate conception" is not mentioned directly in the New Testament at all. The "immaculate conception" is the theological term for the belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born without the stain of Original Sin in view of the merits of her Son. In other words, it is a teaching about God's preparation of Mary for the task of bearing the Son of God into the world. I'm assuming you are really meaning the Virgin Conception and Birth of Jesus. I guess you arbitrarily have decided to declare that the birth of Jesus is the central point in the life of Jesus. The obvious problem here is that this is simply not consistent with the New Testament. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus that stand at the center of the story. There is a very long story about why the passion, death and resurrection are the real climax and goal of the story (I'm happy to chat about that if there is interest) but my main point here is that the entire New Testament frequently alludes to and makes direct reference to these events. The birth of Jesus is certainly important and does point to the uniqueness of Jesus and his identity but those facts are made evident in a variety of ways in the Gospels. The Gospel accounts are clearly not intended to be exhaustive accounts of the life of Jesus. No sound argument can be made from the silence of two Gospel writers when the other two do bear witness to an event (except, perhaps, that they wanted to focus their attention elsewhere or wanted to give emphasis to other aspects of Jesus' life). Concerning the majority of Christians being the children of people who already accept a religion, that's not very surprising at all. There are many millions of people in each generation, however, who come to embrace Christianity who at one time knew nothing about it or rejected it. I don't know why it is an argument against Christianity that many people receive a knowledge of religious faith from their families. Maybe if that is the only reason a person has to continue believing something we might criticize that. For example, my teachers taught me math, science, literature and many other things. Those things are not false because I was taught them, however. Because a person learned about Christianity proves neither that it is true nor that it is false. Our decision on that must be based on other factors.0 -
Emphasis on the virgin birth is very important here or else jesus really is nothing more than a mortal being a prophet instead of the son of god as claimed. It's part of catholic mass, christian faith and really what separates them from other religions. So for the 2 apostles to not even mention such an important detail...........well. It's like saying here "just eat clean" and you'll be okay, but leaving out the detail that you'd still have to be in calorie deficit to lose weight. Kinda important to keep that in and not in "silence".Yet even the apostles (who were apparently the closest) can't really agree on jesus history. In fact 2 of them never even mentioning immaculate conception, which is really what makes jesus "special" compared to other prophets.
Millions of people follow because that's what they were raised on. I can't think of hardly any religion where the majority of followers are children of followers and so on and so on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
There are many problems in your few sentences. First, there is the obvious logical fallacy of "argument from silence." Because one writer doesn't mention something doesn't mean he is unaware of it or that it is untrue. (For example, can I validly infer from your email that you are unaware that all the Gospel writers mention the death of Jesus? You don't mention it so I will conclude that you don't know about it. This is obviously faulty reasoning.) Second, I'm assuming you are just uninformed of what the terms mean that you are using. The "immaculate conception" is not mentioned directly in the New Testament at all. The "immaculate conception" is the theological term for the belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born without the stain of Original Sin in view of the merits of her Son. In other words, it is a teaching about God's preparation of Mary for the task of bearing the Son of God into the world. I'm assuming you are really meaning the Virgin Conception and Birth of Jesus. I guess you arbitrarily have decided to declare that the birth of Jesus is the central point in the life of Jesus. The obvious problem here is that this is simply not consistent with the New Testament. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus that stand at the center of the story. There is a very long story about why the passion, death and resurrection are the real climax and goal of the story (I'm happy to chat about that if there is interest) but my main point here is that the entire New Testament frequently alludes to and makes direct reference to these events. The birth of Jesus is certainly important and does point to the uniqueness of Jesus and his identity but those facts are made evident in a variety of ways in the Gospels. The Gospel accounts are clearly not intended to be exhaustive accounts of the life of Jesus. No sound argument can be made from the silence of two Gospel writers when the other two do bear witness to an event (except, perhaps, that they wanted to focus their attention elsewhere or wanted to give emphasis to other aspects of Jesus' life). Concerning the majority of Christians being the children of people who already accept a religion, that's not very surprising at all. There are many millions of people in each generation, however, who come to embrace Christianity who at one time knew nothing about it or rejected it. I don't know why it is an argument against Christianity that many people receive a knowledge of religious faith from their families. Maybe if that is the only reason a person has to continue believing something we might criticize that. For example, my teachers taught me math, science, literature and many other things. Those things are not false because I was taught them, however. Because a person learned about Christianity proves neither that it is true nor that it is false. Our decision on that must be based on other factors.
Also why not just let kids grow up without any religion at all and then let the "holy spirit" touch them when it's ready? Conversion happens when others CONVINCE others. In the Philippines for example, if there were no missionaries, they probably would still be believing in the superstitions ( which are still imminant today) and spirits before they were converted. If the "holy spirit" really touched them, then they wouldn't need missionaries to go there.
Things that are taught in school are relevant for actual knowledge to survive in the world. Man can most certainly survive without christianity. The Muslims, Buddists, Taoists, have done it for thousands of years.
The question really is was jesus really the son of god, or just another mythological tale? What signifies he was? Was there a prophecy that he really would be the one? Waiting to counter this.0 -
It's fine if people believe there was a dude named Jesus that walked around and people followed him around blah blah, but I find it entirely ridiculous to believe that he actually "healed" anyone or was the son of any "god". If he were real, he was just a guy telling stories that some people happened to believe.. because it gives them hope.0
-
Ok, since everyone is going to debate the magical/miracle aspects of the deal, I'll debate the flaws of the story. First, why is God always breaking his own laws. He picks Mary, betrothed of Joseph to be his son's vessel. That sounds a lot like coveting another mans wife! Weird. Then we have Jesus. Let's say he actually was the son of God, or God himself and had mystic powers like a bronze age X-Men. Well, if I stepped on to a rail road track and let a train hit me, it's a suicide. So for an all powerful God figure to let Romans beat him, nail him to a cross, and then kill him is a suicide since he could have freed himself at any time with is super powers.
And exactly why did he die? He sacrificed himself for our sins? Why? How does that make any sense? If he had only allowed the Romans to give him a nut punch, would we only get a get out of hell free card for a crazy weekend? And what sacrifice did Jesus really give. If the tales are true, and he is the Son of God and let's himself die for three days and then ascends to heaven....I fail to see where the sacrfice is. Now if Jesus had died and was left to be tortured in hell for our sins, the story would make sense. But taking a dirt nap for less time than one of my old drinking binges and then going to eternal paradise isn't exactly a big sacrifice.0 -
This. Apologetics will say he sacrificed his "human" body. Meh, so what. If he apparently was ressurected (and back to human form again since Thomas is asked to touch him) where's the sacrifice?Ok, since everyone is going to debate the magical/miracle aspects of the deal, I'll debate the flaws of the story. First, why is God always breaking his own laws. He picks Mary, betrothed of Joseph to be his son's vessel. That sounds a lot like coveting another mans wife! Weird. Then we have Jesus. Let's say he actually was the son of God, or God himself and had mystic powers like a bronze age X-Men. Well, if I stepped on to a rail road track and let a train hit me, it's a suicide. So for an all powerful God figure to let Romans beat him, nail him to a cross, and then kill him is a suicide since he could have freed himself at any time with is super powers.
And exactly why did he die? He sacrificed himself for our sins? Why? How does that make any sense? If he had only allowed the Romans to give him a nut punch, would we only get a get out of hell free card for a crazy weekend? And what sacrifice did Jesus really give. If the tales are true, and he is the Son of God and let's himself die for three days and then ascends to heaven....I fail to see where the sacrfice is. Now if Jesus had died and was left to be tortured in hell for our sins, the story would make sense. But taking a dirt nap for less time than one of my old drinking binges and then going to eternal paradise isn't exactly a big sacrifice.
It baffles me that very intelligent people still believe the stories told about jesus when in reality they wouldn't believe it now if some dude apparently did all that was written about in the bible presently. Walk on water? Criss Angel did it on live TV. Even walked through glass. Does anyone really believed it was magic? No. People know there is a trick to it. Does anyone here believe that people couldn't be tricked or fooled back in those days? Apparently not because believing in a magical being, raising the dead, walking on water, and rising up from the grave had to be true since people must have been smarter.
The real deal is no christian wants to believe they've been suckered. Believing their whole life about jesus, but when actual logic is applied to what may have really happened, it still would be hard to deny since they would have to rethink their whole beliefs that they've held steadfastly to for so long.
I used to believe that only "clean eating" was the way to lose weight. Science disproved it through clinical study. Did I want to believe it after stating it for so long? No. But now since actual proof has be provided (and proven many times over) I really accepted it.0 -
Ok, since everyone is going to debate the magical/miracle aspects of the deal, I'll debate the flaws of the story. First, why is God always breaking his own laws. He picks Mary, betrothed of Joseph to be his son's vessel. That sounds a lot like coveting another mans wife! Weird. Then we have Jesus. Let's say he actually was the son of God, or God himself and had mystic powers like a bronze age X-Men. Well, if I stepped on to a rail road track and let a train hit me, it's a suicide. So for an all powerful God figure to let Romans beat him, nail him to a cross, and then kill him is a suicide since he could have freed himself at any time with is super powers.
And exactly why did he die? He sacrificed himself for our sins? Why? How does that make any sense? If he had only allowed the Romans to give him a nut punch, would we only get a get out of hell free card for a crazy weekend? And what sacrifice did Jesus really give. If the tales are true, and he is the Son of God and let's himself die for three days and then ascends to heaven....I fail to see where the sacrfice is. Now if Jesus had died and was left to be tortured in hell for our sins, the story would make sense. But taking a dirt nap for less time than one of my old drinking binges and then going to eternal paradise isn't exactly a big sacrifice.
God didn't have sex with Mary, he just chose her to be the vessel to deliver His son. It is silly to equate that to "coveting another man's wife." Also failure to take action against ones own death does not equate to suicide. If someone is holding a gun to my head saying that if I do not have sex with him he will shoot me, am I committing suicide by choosing death over cheating on my husband?
Also, you ask how death on the cross is sacrifice? #1, he left his place in heaven to spend 33 years on earth so that is the first sacrifice #2 being beaten and hung on a cross. Would you seriously say, that you had not sacrificed anything for your children if you allowed someone to beat you and hang you on a tree so that they could live? Oh, and if you did do that so that your children could live, you committed suicide?0 -
This. Apologetics will say he sacrificed his "human" body. Meh, so what. If he apparently was ressurected (and back to human form again since Thomas is asked to touch him) where's the sacrifice?Ok, since everyone is going to debate the magical/miracle aspects of the deal, I'll debate the flaws of the story. First, why is God always breaking his own laws. He picks Mary, betrothed of Joseph to be his son's vessel. That sounds a lot like coveting another mans wife! Weird. Then we have Jesus. Let's say he actually was the son of God, or God himself and had mystic powers like a bronze age X-Men. Well, if I stepped on to a rail road track and let a train hit me, it's a suicide. So for an all powerful God figure to let Romans beat him, nail him to a cross, and then kill him is a suicide since he could have freed himself at any time with is super powers.
And exactly why did he die? He sacrificed himself for our sins? Why? How does that make any sense? If he had only allowed the Romans to give him a nut punch, would we only get a get out of hell free card for a crazy weekend? And what sacrifice did Jesus really give. If the tales are true, and he is the Son of God and let's himself die for three days and then ascends to heaven....I fail to see where the sacrfice is. Now if Jesus had died and was left to be tortured in hell for our sins, the story would make sense. But taking a dirt nap for less time than one of my old drinking binges and then going to eternal paradise isn't exactly a big sacrifice.
It baffles me that very intelligent people still believe the stories told about jesus when in reality they wouldn't believe it now if some dude apparently did all that was written about in the bible presently. Walk on water? Criss Angel did it on live TV. Even walked through glass. Does anyone really believed it was magic? No. People know there is a trick to it. Does anyone here believe that people couldn't be tricked or fooled back in those days? Apparently not because believing in a magical being, raising the dead, walking on water, and rising up from the grave had to be true since people must have been smarter.
The real deal is no christian wants to believe they've been suckered. Believing their whole life about jesus, but when actual logic is applied to what may have really happened, it still would be hard to deny since they would have to rethink their whole beliefs that they've held steadfastly to for so long.
I used to believe that only "clean eating" was the way to lose weight. Science disproved it through clinical study. Did I want to believe it after stating it for so long? No. But now since actual proof has be provided (and proven many times over) I really accepted it.
If everything Chis Angel has done was prophesied 1500 years ago, I'd believe it.....It's not that someone just came along and did a bunch of magic tricks. Jesus fulfilled prophesy from hundred of years prior0 -
Emphasis on the virgin birth is very important here or else jesus really is nothing more than a mortal being a prophet instead of the son of god as claimed. It's part of catholic mass, christian faith and really what separates them from other religions. So for the 2 apostles to not even mention such an important detail...........well. It's like saying here "just eat clean" and you'll be okay, but leaving out the detail that you'd still have to be in calorie deficit to lose weight. Kinda important to keep that in and not in "silence".
Also why not just let kids grow up without any religion at all and then let the "holy spirit" touch them when it's ready? Conversion happens when others CONVINCE others. In the Philippines for example, if there were no missionaries, they probably would still be believing in the superstitions ( which are still imminant today) and spirits before they were converted. If the "holy spirit" really touched them, then they wouldn't need missionaries to go there.
Things that are taught in school are relevant for actual knowledge to survive in the world. Man can most certainly survive without christianity. The Muslims, Buddists, Taoists, have done it for thousands of years.
The question really is was jesus really the son of god, or just another mythological tale? What signifies he was? Was there a prophecy that he really would be the one? Waiting to counter this.
1. Your first sentence is simply a non sequitur. If Jesus had a human father that would no more require that Jesus is "nothing more than a mortal man" than the fact that he had a human mother requires that he is "nothing more than a mortal man." I believe Jesus did not have a human father but your logic here simply is not convincing. What makes it impossible that God could unite himself to a human nature ("Incarnation") that is produced through normal human procreation? I see nothing that makes this impossible.
2. The birth of Jesus is not what separates Christianity from other religions. Muslims, for instance, admit the virgin birth of Jesus but deny his death on the cross. Regarding the Catholic mass, the center of the mass is the Last Supper of Jesus and sacramental participation in the sacrifice of Jesus. The focus is simply not on the birth of Jesus.
3. You keep referring to "two Apostles" not mentioning the birth of Jesus (presumably you are referring to the two Gospels that do not mention the birth of Jesus). First, one of those Gospels was not written by an Apostle (Mark). The other one (John) is apparently written to supplement Matthew, Mark and Luke and therefore very rarely repeats the same things they present. I get the feeling you lack the basic familiarity with the New Testament that is required to adequately evaluate your claims.
4. By raising kids without sharing your religious faith you are teaching them an attitude towards religion. You are telling them that your religion means so little to you that you don't even want to share it with them. If I have something wonderful that I want my kids to share and experience, I make it available to them.
5. The Holy Spirit works through human instruments. What you are suggesting is a very unChristian approach; what you are describing is more like Gnosticism. Christians believe that God is known and revealed through his creation. This is one of the central reasons that we believe God became "incarnate" in Jesus. God draws near to humans within the creation rather than in spite of it.
6. Yes, conversions take place when people are convinced. That must mean that a lot of people have found Christianity convincing through the centuries. Again, you make an illogical leap by implying the Holy Spirit acts without means or instruments.
7. Concerning things taught in school, you miss my point. I was simply pointing out that just because something is taught doesn't mean it is wrong. I would argue that religious faith is a vital force for developing virtue and moral goodness in human communities and that it provides an organizing framework for interpreting one's existence and meaning in the world. Schools don't necessarily teach this (although many have and do throughout our history) but they do presuppose a framework for understanding things that is expressed in the other specific disciplines tha are taught in school.
8. Many things signify Jesus was the Son of God. One is that he predicted he would die and rise again from the dead. Those who saw him alive after his death died affirming it was true. Christianity is a historical effect of that claim. I believe it is true. To say that this is the only reason to believe Jesus is the Son of God, however, would be a radical understatement. If you ask a man or woman who loves his/her spouse, tell me in one setence why you trust your spouse, he/she would probably find it difficult to answer. An informed Christian will also find it difficult to offer a brief answer. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because I believe the entire Old Testament prepares for his coming (and yes, there are many prophecies suggesting many things about Jesus). I can't read Isaiah 53, for instance, without seeing Jesus predicted in every line. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because his teachings resonate with me. I find his words, actions, authority, and love convincing and compelling. I find my life profoundly enriched in every way by the beliefs and guidance of Christianity. I could go on and on but obviously none of this is convincing to you without having shared the same experiences. Like the person who has not loved a wonderful husband or wife finds it difficult to understand what such a love is like, so it is, I'm afraid, that those who lack the experience of the beauty of Christianity will only misunderstand.0 -
Please find post the scripture from the Tanach that says that.If everything Chis Angel has done was prophesied 1500 years ago, I'd believe it.....It's not that someone just came along and did a bunch of magic tricks. Jesus fulfilled prophesy from hundred of years prior
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Ok, since everyone is going to debate the magical/miracle aspects of the deal, I'll debate the flaws of the story. First, why is God always breaking his own laws. He picks Mary, betrothed of Joseph to be his son's vessel. That sounds a lot like coveting another mans wife! Weird. Then we have Jesus. Let's say he actually was the son of God, or God himself and had mystic powers like a bronze age X-Men. Well, if I stepped on to a rail road track and let a train hit me, it's a suicide. So for an all powerful God figure to let Romans beat him, nail him to a cross, and then kill him is a suicide since he could have freed himself at any time with is super powers.
And exactly why did he die? He sacrificed himself for our sins? Why? How does that make any sense? If he had only allowed the Romans to give him a nut punch, would we only get a get out of hell free card for a crazy weekend? And what sacrifice did Jesus really give. If the tales are true, and he is the Son of God and let's himself die for three days and then ascends to heaven....I fail to see where the sacrfice is. Now if Jesus had died and was left to be tortured in hell for our sins, the story would make sense. But taking a dirt nap for less time than one of my old drinking binges and then going to eternal paradise isn't exactly a big sacrifice.
Only a skeptic or atheist could read the biblical story of Jesus' birth and so radically misunderstand it. There is absolutely nothing in the biblical story that implies human passions in relationship to God's choice of Mary. Since every being, including you, only exist this moment because God is sustaining you in being and giving you existence, God may do as he wills with his creation. If God willed that there be nothing, everything would vanish now. God chose Mary through whom he would miraculously cause the Incarnation. It is a radical perversion to turn this into some kind of human act of coveteousness. How can God "covet" that which is, in the most radical sense, his own? Furthermore, God doesn't "break" his own laws. "Laws" are our way of describing the regular providence of God. You apparently think "laws" are automous things. I believe the ultimate reason for the predictable, logical functioning of our world is the mind and will of God. If God chooses to do something "new" in his world this is not a violation of law but a new expression of the will of the God who governs and rules this world.
Your observations about Jesus, suicide, etc., reveal a complete misunderstanding of Christian belief. Jesus' death was not a suicide. Jesus was put to death by people who wanted to kill him. This is not suicide. If a soldier, police officer, or other person chooses to put himself/herself in harm's way for the good of another, we do not call that suicide. This is true even if that person has the power to do otherwise. Let's say a soldier has the "power" to abandon his comrades on the battlefield to save his own life but chooses to stay by their side even if it means his death, we call him a courageous soldier. If he uses his "power" to escape personal harm to the detriment of those around him, we call him a coward. Christians believe that the death of Jesus is a self-sacrificial act performed solely for the good of the human family. In fact, I think your objections prove quite the opposite. If Jesus is the incarnate Son of God and could have escaped death but did not because he saw his death as a sacrificial one benefitting others, it is a supreme expression of self-giving love. That was the goal. Your suggestions would work for a selfish "god" but that is not what we find in the New Testament.
You are judging the death of Jesus by quantifying it in terms of time. How ridiculous! Would you do the same for the mother that leaps in front of a moving car to push her child out of the way and save the child's life? Would you really look at this act and say, "Oh, that act didn't mean anything because it happened in a split second!" How silly! The quality or value of the act is judged on the level of the will and intention that produced the action. If the death of Jesus is the result of the eternal will of God to enter into union with his creation in time and space and reveal his love for the world by sharing in human suffering and providing the supreme model of love and self-sacrifice and thereby reveal the path to supreme happiness, the "quality" of what happened in a brief historical moment has a weight or gravity that exceeds all other historical events by infinity.
I can't resist saying that your responses continue to show profound disrespect for Christianity (obviously). Based on your brief words here, I don't think you have accumulated near enough understandng of the things you are writing about to justify such harsh and disrespectful ways of speaking. I think it is a moral vice to speak arrogantly about things of which I am ignorant.0 -
Ok, since everyone is going to debate the magical/miracle aspects of the deal, I'll debate the flaws of the story. First, why is God always breaking his own laws. He picks Mary, betrothed of Joseph to be his son's vessel. That sounds a lot like coveting another mans wife! Weird. Then we have Jesus. Let's say he actually was the son of God, or God himself and had mystic powers like a bronze age X-Men. Well, if I stepped on to a rail road track and let a train hit me, it's a suicide. So for an all powerful God figure to let Romans beat him, nail him to a cross, and then kill him is a suicide since he could have freed himself at any time with is super powers.
And exactly why did he die? He sacrificed himself for our sins? Why? How does that make any sense? If he had only allowed the Romans to give him a nut punch, would we only get a get out of hell free card for a crazy weekend? And what sacrifice did Jesus really give. If the tales are true, and he is the Son of God and let's himself die for three days and then ascends to heaven....I fail to see where the sacrfice is. Now if Jesus had died and was left to be tortured in hell for our sins, the story would make sense. But taking a dirt nap for less time than one of my old drinking binges and then going to eternal paradise isn't exactly a big sacrifice.
Only a skeptic or atheist could read the biblical story of Jesus' birth and so radically misunderstand it. There is absolutely nothing in the biblical story that implies human passions in relationship to God's choice of Mary. Since every being, including you, only exist this moment because God is sustaining you in being and giving you existence, God may do as he wills with his creation. If God willed that there be nothing, everything would vanish now. God chose Mary through whom he would miraculously cause the Incarnation. It is a radical perversion to turn this into some kind of human act of coveteousness. How can God "covet" that which is, in the most radical sense, his own? Furthermore, God doesn't "break" his own laws. "Laws" are our way of describing the regular providence of God. You apparently think "laws" are automous things. I believe the ultimate reason for the predictable, logical functioning of our world is the mind and will of God. If God chooses to do something "new" in his world this is not a violation of law but a new expression of the will of the God who governs and rules this world.
Your observations about Jesus, suicide, etc., reveal a complete misunderstanding of Christian belief. Jesus' death was not a suicide. Jesus was put to death by people who wanted to kill him. This is not suicide. If a soldier, police officer, or other person chooses to put himself/herself in harm's way for the good of another, we do not call that suicide. This is true even if that person has the power to do otherwise. Let's say a soldier has the "power" to abandon his comrades on the battlefield to save his own life but chooses to stay by their side even if it means his death, we call him a courageous soldier. If he uses his "power" to escape personal harm to the detriment of those around him, we call him a coward. Christians believe that the death of Jesus is a self-sacrificial act performed solely for the good of the human family. In fact, I think your objections prove quite the opposite. If Jesus is the incarnate Son of God and could have escaped death but did not because he saw his death as a sacrificial one benefitting others, it is a supreme expression of self-giving love. That was the goal. Your suggestions would work for a selfish "god" but that is not what we find in the New Testament.
You are judging the death of Jesus by quantifying it in terms of time. How ridiculous! Would you do the same for the mother that leaps in front of a moving car to push her child out of the way and save the child's life? Would you really look at this act and say, "Oh, that act didn't mean anything because it happened in a split second!" How silly! The quality or value of the act is judged on the level of the will and intention that produced the action. If the death of Jesus is the result of the eternal will of God to enter into union with his creation in time and space and reveal his love for the world by sharing in human suffering and providing the supreme model of love and self-sacrifice and thereby reveal the path to supreme happiness, the "quality" of what happened in a brief historical moment has a weight or gravity that exceeds all other historical events by infinity.
I can't resist saying that your responses continue to show profound disrespect for Christianity (obviously). Based on your brief words here, I don't think you have accumulated near enough understandng of the things you are writing about to justify such harsh and disrespectful ways of speaking. I think it is a moral vice to speak arrogantly about things of which I am ignorant.
If God didn't covet Mary, then why did he choose here specifically? Of course he coveted her. And it's hilarious that he needed her at all. Why not just make a man like he did Adam. Or one out of thin air. Why did he have to make him a baby to grow up, not a man from the very beginning? These stories just don't make any sense. So yes, I guess I am a skeptic, but I think that is a good thing other than falling for the oldest con job in the world.
Next, I stand by that Jesus, if he was in fact God, did commit suicide because he could escape his predicament with a thought. All this talk about human soldiers and policeman is a non factor because they do not possess super powers.
Everything else you wrote was drivel you read somewhere else and as poetic as it sounds, doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But I am glad you realize I don't respect the faith. But at least I'm honest about it. And I don't want lectures from anyone about being disrepectful or not knowledgeable, especially when you, a catholic, posted a thread raging about how bystanders to pedophila should be punished, but defended the current Pope and the Church's cover up of child rape as a vendetta perpetrated by the secular press.
It just goes to show, whether it's the insane stuff in your bible or the criminal activity of the pedos in your church, you are an apologist who thinks that her fancy words smiles makes her respectful. It doesn't.0 -
The same could be said about Heracles and Mitra. Why couldn't it have happened with them?1. Your first sentence is simply a non sequitur. If Jesus had a human father that would no more require that Jesus is "nothing more than a mortal man" than the fact that he had a human mother requires that he is "nothing more than a mortal man." I believe Jesus did not have a human father but your logic here simply is not convincing. What makes it impossible that God could unite himself to a human nature ("Incarnation") that is produced through normal human procreation? I see nothing that makes this impossible.
I'd like to see proof about Muslims admitting "virgin" birth of jesus. And the catholic mass is consistently proclaiming the virgin birth and even prays to Mary. Ever see statues of her in a catholic church with candles around it? I'm not saying that the last supper isn't an important part of the mass, but if you attend, you will most certainly hear in most responses about Mary's virginity, immaculate conception, and jesus divinity from it.2. The birth of Jesus is not what separates Christianity from other religions. Muslims, for instance, admit the virgin birth of Jesus but deny his death on the cross. Regarding the Catholic mass, the center of the mass is the Last Supper of Jesus and sacramental participation in the sacrifice of Jesus. The focus is simply not on the birth of Jesus.
I'm sorry, I understood an apostle as a messenger. So I will recant and say "gospels of 2 people who followed jesus". Regardless, 2 gospels don't denote this important fact. Without the virgin birth, jesus then was nothing but an ordinary man.3. You keep referring to "two Apostles" not mentioning the birth of Jesus (presumably you are referring to the two Gospels that do not mention the birth of Jesus). First, one of those Gospels was not written by an Apostle (Mark). The other one (John) is apparently written to supplement Matthew, Mark and Luke and therefore very rarely repeats the same things they present. I get the feeling you lack the basic familiarity with the New Testament that is required to adequately evaluate your claims.
Subjective. I see religion as a way people are coerced into following a set of rules by a being who has no evidence of existing. You can have morals without religion. It's just not the morals that the religious like.4. By raising kids without sharing your religious faith you are teaching them an attitude towards religion. You are telling them that your religion means so little to you that you don't even want to share it with them. If I have something wonderful that I want my kids to share and experience, I make it available to them.
Wait. So when a person says they were touched by the holy spirit, it was actually a human that did it? Interesting. I guess all the people that say it are full of crap then.5. The Holy Spirit works through human instruments. What you are suggesting is a very unChristian approach; what you are describing is more like Gnosticism. Christians believe that God is known and revealed through his creation. This is one of the central reasons that we believe God became "incarnate" in Jesus. God draws near to humans within the creation rather than in spite of it.
You do notice that Atheism is rising, especially amongst the younger generation. I attribute that to kids now being much smarter than to just listen to stories and are logically figuring out that the bible is really a great story book.6. Yes, conversions take place when people are convinced. That must mean that a lot of people have found Christianity convincing through the centuries. Again, you make an illogical leap by implying the Holy Spirit acts without means or instruments.
It depends on how you view that faith. Do you think Islamic faith being taught to Muslims is moral enough to teach to christian children?7. Concerning things taught in school, you miss my point. I was simply pointing out that just because something is taught doesn't mean it is wrong. I would argue that religious faith is a vital force for developing virtue and moral goodness in human communities and that it provides an organizing framework for interpreting one's existence and meaning in the world. Schools don't necessarily teach this (although many have and do throughout our history) but they do presuppose a framework for understanding things that is expressed in the other specific disciplines tha are taught in school.
Many scriptures in the old testament describe just how a king would act with his kingdom. In fact the majority of morals actually came from within clans and families, then as they grew and had leaders, those leaders dictated what is right to do. It's the same today with families. What you believe is what your kids learn to be moral, but it may not be the same for another family that has the same religion. I can't think of any religion that stands behind killing just to killing, stealing just to steal so those basics are set. But you don't need religion to figure that one out. Morals are subjective at best even within religous factions.8. Many things signify Jesus was the Son of God. One is that he predicted he would die and rise again from the dead. Those who saw him alive after his death died affirming it was true. Christianity is a historical effect of that claim. I believe it is true. To say that this is the only reason to believe Jesus is the Son of God, however, would be a radical understatement. If you ask a man or woman who loves his/her spouse, tell me in one setence why you trust your spouse, he/she would probably find it difficult to answer. An informed Christian will also find it difficult to offer a brief answer. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because I believe the entire Old Testament prepares for his coming (and yes, there are many prophecies suggesting many things about Jesus). I can't read Isaiah 53, for instance, without seeing Jesus predicted in every line. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because his teachings resonate with me. I find his words, actions, authority, and love convincing and compelling. I find my life profoundly enriched in every way by the beliefs and guidance of Christianity. I could go on and on but obviously none of this is convincing to you without having shared the same experiences. Like the person who has not loved a wonderful husband or wife finds it difficult to understand what such a love is like, so it is, I'm afraid, that those who lack the experience of the beauty of Christianity will only misunderstand.0 -
I'm never surprised when people from millenia ago turn out to have made a mistake.
We don't know what year Christ may have been born, so how can we accurately know it's been 2011 years?
It's just a cultural way of keeping a calendar. Not everyone even uses it. And it's changed numerous times.
I am in no way disputing that there were followers of Christ, referred to in historic writings as Christians. The theory I've read is that it's a mistranslation of "nice people". I've read that who we refer to as Jesus Christ may have been an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua Ben Yosef. One thing I know based simply on having a brain is that at the very least the dude was not blonde with blue eyes and a button nose.
So we don't know when he was born, when he died, what his name was or what he looked like. But everyone's so sure he exists and thinks we should base our lives on him. Sorry. Not for me.
We have far more information about Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua ben Yosef just means Jesus, Son of Joseph, nothing all that surprising there) than about virtually any other person of antiquity. The New Testament includes 27 documents written by people who either had direct contact with Jesus or were contemporaries of those who did. If you apply the normal standards of historical investigation to the New Testament documents they pass with flying colors. If the evidence and reasons for believing in Jesus were as shallow and inconsequential as you suggest in your brief comments, it is ludicrous to imagine billions of people giving their lives to follow him. I dare say more books have been written about Jesus than anyone else so the data must be far more significant than the largely unknown character you describe.
Without corroborating objective evidence, you can't really use christian writings as "proof" of the existence of Jesus, and the use of citations that come from christian apologists is not very useful either. The idea that "more books have been written about jesus" also serves as "proof" is equally weak. Over 100 million copies of "Lord of the Rings" have been sold--that doesn't prove the existence of Hobbits.
The need for christian writers to "prove" the existence of Jesus by exaggerating and even inventing historical "evidence" seems particularly insecure for a religion that has inspired "billions of people giving their lives to follow".
It doesn't really make any difference, does it?
I see the question as essentially being of two parts. The first is "was there an actual person, whatever his nature, named Jesus who lived and preached in Galilee and Judea approx 2000 years? Like I said, I find it interesting that there is so little actual historical evidence. There is little or nothing in the way of records, government accounts, physical evidence, etc. There are no eyewitness accounts. You don't identify your 27 "sources", but I suspect I have read most of them, and all are hearsay, and arguments can be made that some have been altered and others only restate current thinking and historical interpretation of the time they were written.
I still find it an interesting paradox that there is so little physical substance of someone who has played such a pivotal role in modern history. (Again, I do not mean this in any disrespectful way). I have never discounted the idea that that may have been on purpose, if you believe in a "divine scheme".
To me, and I would think for most christians, the search for the "historical Jesus" is an interesting academic exercise, especially for those who enjoy digging for facts and historical analysis.
You made what I think is the most powerful and simple argument--probably the only one that needs to be made. Just like we "prove" the existence of things like black holes and subatomic particles by what happens around them, the fact that--whatever happened in that part of the world 2000 years ago--a message emerged that resonated then and now with a vast number of people is pretty powerful evidence that there was someone to initiate that message. I don't think a movement like that, occurring as it did in such a compressed period of time, it something that can just happen spontaneously.
So, regardless of what I considered to be almost nonexistent historical evidence, I am coming down on the side of, yes, there was a physical entity, charismatic leader, whatever you want to call him who did live at that time and whose teachings provided the earliest foundation of what eventually evolved into christianity.
Now the second question: was this Jesus who lived 2000 years ago, the Jesus Christ as defined by christian doctrine. That's the part I can't go with. I don't have time to go into detail, but when I look at the evolution of Jesus Christ, I think the historical evidence clearly shows that: A) the actual Jesus bears little or no resemblance to Jesus the Christ and
that the "creation" of Jesus the Christ was an essentially man-made affair, influenced by social, philosophical, and political factors that came into play as the original teachings of Jesus spread outside of the Jewish communities for which they were originally intended and into Greek, Roman, and eventually pagan cultures.
These are just opinions, of course, and one can, for the sake of argument, dispute them on their merits (or lack thereof). Someone who is a Christian can also just dismiss them out of hand--there's nothing to say that everything that has occurred isn't part of god's overall plan.
I don't write these things to try to undermine anyone's faith, nor to attack or denigrate (although I understand that some comments might be taken that way). I respect each individual's personal beliefs (emphasis on the "personal").
I think there is some significance in pointing out or arguing in favor of what I see are the "human" origins of religion, and this (finally) goes back to the original topic statement. I do think that most religions reflect human concepts rather than "divine" ones. I think that man creates god in man's image and likeness, not the other way around. I do think that many of the elements of the Jesus narrative use symbolism and themes that have been common to man and man's religions throughout recorded history. A person of "faith" might look at these common ideas as "proof" of god's influence since the beginning of time. People like me see them as evidence of archetypes that are an inherent part of humanity and so they manifest themselves in repeating themes across different era, cultures, and religions.
The main importance of this to me is to destroy the concept of "one true faith", the idea that there is only ONE acceptable type of religious belief, or that one religion is inherently superior and thus deserves to be given precedence over all others. That the beliefs of one particular sect should be used as the legal or moral standard that all other must follow and that adherence to one particular sect should be a de facto requirement for, say, holding public office.0 -
The "immaculate conception" is the theological term for the belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born without the stain of Original Sin in view of the merits of her Son. In other words, it is a teaching about God's preparation of Mary for the task of bearing the Son of God into the world. I'm assuming you are really meaning the Virgin Conception and Birth of Jesus.
I wonder why so many get this wrong? It is really a fine point of primarily Catholic theology (the immaculate conception), but virtually everyone uses it to refer to the virgin birth. Ah well.0 -
No the old testament was revised and written (along with new testament to make the bible) after christ was killed. Before that stories were orated down from generation to generation. And you know how that can go.The Epic of Gilgamesh has many parts that parallel the Bible including the Great Flood, the story of Adam and Eve, etc but was written thousands of years before Christ was reportedly born. Interesting.
The Old Testament was also written before Christ was born
Questions to those who say that Jesus never existed.....then why did we for so long call "BCE", "BC" or "Common Era" "anodomini" (the year of our LORD) Really? We divided history based off of a myth?
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You might want to look into the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least one book of the OT is present (Isaiah, as it happens, the book most frequently cited as containing prophetic Christian material), 100% consistent with current versions, and about 150 years prior to Christ. For what it is worth.0 -
And while true, it's quite ironic that we can dismiss "magical" events because we're not as naive as back then, yet people still have faith in a magical being even though there's really no logical way it can really be explained.While the story of Christ may or may not be myth, the influence of Christianity on history is completely factual.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't think the problem is with logic. The supernatural is not inherently illogical, logically coherent statements can be made about miracles, magic, etc. (By this I mean logic proper, not the rather informal use often seen) The problem is with the logic of materialism, the method of science, etc. In the current western world, we see a two story frame for reality, the story of fact and the story of value. Most would like to see facts kept to scientifc ventures, and faith to deal in the rather aribitrary realm of "values." For that matter, with evolutionary psychology, and the more holistic darwinian ventures, many would like to see even the value realm (morality, etc) removed from faith based discusssions. That is a personal choice. For myself, my world view is faith based, and it is utterly integrated. I prefer not to deal in dualism.0 -
Of course realize, the entire point of Christian beliefs is that the proof got up and walked away! Heck, if we ever found the body, we Christians would have real problems!I still find it an interesting paradox that there is so little physical substance of someone who has played such a pivotal role in modern history.0 -
Of course realize, the entire point of Christian beliefs is that the proof got up and walked away! Heck, if we ever found the body, we Christians would have real problems!I still find it an interesting paradox that there is so little physical substance of someone who has played such a pivotal role in modern history.
Yeah, because there's no possibility that body smugglers/grave robbers had anything to do with it. LOL.0 -
Other stories similar to jesus' story preceded the new testament. Heracles was born half human half god, did "labors" of good, was killed, and resurrected to be a god. Horus is another man god story. Many of the births centered around the winter solstice.
So jesus story isn't original, it's just another rendition of a man-god story that was carried down through the ages.
Discuss.....
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My biggest problem with this is the same one that I have with the Jesus seminar. The currently accepted scholastic view of the origins of Christianity are that they are oriental, near east. It was a culture that loathed syncretism, and was stictly monotheist. The idea (especially as espoused by Erhman) that a group of Jews from that area would create a mythology based on a Greek worldview is a touch misinformed. It is an easy thing to say from this vast time distance, very tough to picture from the contemporary picture. A bit of chronological snobbery, really.0 -
Of course! Christians do, though, take at face value the later testimony of the work of Christ in the risen state. Just to be consistent in our beliefs.
Of course realize, the entire point of Christian beliefs is that the proof got up and walked away! Heck, if we ever found the body, we Christians would have real problems!I still find it an interesting paradox that there is so little physical substance of someone who has played such a pivotal role in modern history.
Yeah, because there's no possibility that body smugglers/grave robbers had anything to do with it. LOL.0 -
Other stories similar to jesus' story preceded the new testament. Heracles was born half human half god, did "labors" of good, was killed, and resurrected to be a god. Horus is another man god story. Many of the births centered around the winter solstice.
So jesus story isn't original, it's just another rendition of a man-god story that was carried down through the ages.
Discuss.....
In fact, arguably, the story (particularly those parts surrounding His birth) is a mishmash of various earlier stories re-framed to suit a particular political end. However, whatever the truth behind the more fantastical/miraculous/magical/allegorical elements of Jesus' story, as told by the Bible, there is historical evidence for the existence of a man, a preacher, known as Jesus of Nazareth. His existence is fact, the events and stories are open to interpretation.0 -
Of course realize, the entire point of Christian beliefs is that the proof got up and walked away! Heck, if we ever found the body, we Christians would have real problems!I still find it an interesting paradox that there is so little physical substance of someone who has played such a pivotal role in modern history.
Lol! Too true!:laugh:0 -
You ever step out of a party, to pick up like a pizza or a case of beer or something, and you come back to find everyone having a wild time with lampshades on their heads? Because that's how I feel right now...0
This discussion has been closed.