Creationism.

[phrodeau]

There are minor discrepencies but all witnesses report on key facts about Jesus:

• Tall, handsome and friendly man
• Good carpenter
• Exceedingly fair with everyone
• Displayed a temper at times...but generally happy and calm
• Above-average (for the time) personal hygiene
• Excellent story teller
• Performer of miracles and amazing feats of strength
• Arose from the dead and appeared no worse for wear
• Did well with the ladies but had no one sweetheart

Good carpenter? Then why did He end up with nails through His hands?

 

[Sean]

Good carpenter? Then why did He end up with nails through His hands?

Judas nicked his claw hammer.

 

[Tryharder62]

The Bible wasn't even put together till sometime after the death of Jesus and it only has selected books put in it, books that the Church decided the people should believe. So the Bible didn't really come from God, it was created by humans.

But besides that you're only using the Bible to support your claims, where is the solid evidence? That is what you need.

I liked he explaination of how the bible was complied on gracethrufaith.com. You are right that men selected the books to put in the bible. All were thoroughly scrutinized.

The Old testement -senior priests looked if the books were authentic. (written by the person identified as the author).

The New Testement had pretty much come together by 150AD but there continued to be discussion about a few books until 400 AD. It was not offically canonized until the Council of Trent in 1500"s. There were three basic criteria for inclusion.

1. Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least directly taught about them by the Apostles?
2. Was each book consistent with the church practice and tradition.
3. Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word of god.

In both Old and New testaments, the books included had to be generally viewed as the work of divinely inspired writers who faithfully converted God's Word into written form (2 Peter 1:20-21)

I included the information about the bible being divinely inspired. If you don't believe that you can at least see that the books were scrutinized to be written by who it was said to be written. In the New Testement authors were either eyewitnesses or taught by the apostles. A valuable way to get information I believe.

 

[Tryharder62]

Good carpenter? Then why did He end up with nails through His hands?

He wasn't doing the hammering.

 

[butters]

this thread makes me feel very tired.





but the 'judas nicked his claw-hammer' post revived me

 

[hogjack]

Then why did He end up with nails through His hands?

The nails were through the wrists, not the hands.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Is this how we separate the nuts from the whackjobs?

 

[hogjack]

Is this how we separate the nuts from the whackjobs?

It's an option.

But separating is difficult on the kids.

 

[phrodeau]

The nails were through the wrists, not the hands.

What is this about, then?

John 20:24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
John 20:25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
John 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

 

[CandiCame]

You know what I like about that story when Jesus came back?

He was like, "Hey, I'm Jesus."

And the deciples were like, "Bullshit."

And he was like, "You guys got anything to eat?"

And the deciples were like, "Wait... yeah. That's Jesus."

 

[hogjack]

What is this about, then?

Translated from the Greek "hands" means the hands & wrist. This has been covered thoroughly in research over the past 200 years.

Put down the beer and start reading.

 

[r_mck]

Creationism is a science in the same way that McDonald's is fine dining.

 

[kbate]

Creationism is a science in the same way that McDonald's is fine dining.

Wow. Deep. Tell me more.

 

[hogjack]

You know what I like about that story when Jesus came back?

He was like, "Hey, I'm Jesus."

And the deciples were like, "Bullshit."

And he was like, "You guys got anything to eat?"

And the deciples were like, "Wait... yeah. That's Jesus."

It is possible this was the conversation. Remember, the disciples were regular people. Not sure what a "deciple" is but you probably are referring to disciples.

If I were a disciple I would have said, "Bullshit!", too.

Nevertheless, not sure what this has to do with Creationism but it is insightful dialogue you have written.

 

[phrodeau]

Translated from the Greek "hands" means the hands & wrist. This has been covered thoroughly in research over the past 200 years.

Put down the beer and start reading.

So Christians have been lied to for 1800 years?

 

[hogjack]

So Christians have been lied to for 1800 years?

A better term is misinformed. Yes.

Physiological studies have shown that the Romans put nails into the wrists of those being crucified. Remember that Jesus Christ was not the first nor last killed via that tortuous method. So there is plenty of evidence demonstrating how it was done.

Again, this has nothing to do with Creationism, Evolution or Intelligent Design nor does it have anything to do with the danger of nails, wood or over-wearing of sandals.

 

[Tryharder62]

So Christians have been lied to for 1800 years?

You know there is debate even among Christians of where Jesus was nailed. In the palms or in the wrist. Archeaology of the time reports that most crucifictions were done with the nail between the ulna and radius bone just above the wrist. Not that it couldn't have happened another way. It was done that way for the support to hold the body up.

Some people disagree that it could have been done through the palm because it would not hold the body. Others argue that he was tied to the cross adding the needed support.

There is also some arguement that the Greek word translated into hand could have just as easily been translated into wrist, finger.

If the Shroud of Tourin is the cloth of Jesus it depicts pierced wrists.

What isn't debated is that Jesus was nailed to the cross. Secular and Biblical manuscripts agree on that.

 

[hogjack]

If the Shroud of Tourin is the cloth of Jesus it depicts pierced wrists.

The Shroud of Turin is a complete middle ages fabrication. It is not, in any way, evidence of anything but a brilliant bit of deception.

Whomever made it succeeded beyond their original expectations or plans.

Even if it were a legitimate shroud there is no way to prove it was used on Jesus Christ's body.

Nevertheless, I believe it was made by Leonardo da Vinci as do many other experts.

 

[Tryharder62]

The Shroud of Turin is a complete middle ages fabrication. It is not, in any way, evidence of anything but a brilliant bit of deception.

Whomever made it succeeded beyond their original expectations or plans.

Even if it were a legitimate shroud there is no way to prove it was used on Jesus Christ's body.

Nevertheless, I believe it was made by Leonardo da Vinci as do many other experts.

That was just one of the arguements I found. I tried to include everything I could. Personally I think it doesn't matter hand or wrist the real thing is that he was nailed to the cross. If I had to make a choice I would think he was tied and nailed through the palms. It is hard because the wrist arguement is compelling. There is no doubt he was nailed to the cross though.

 

[CandiCame]

It is possible this was the conversation. Remember, the disciples were regular people. Not sure what a "deciple" is but you probably are referring to disciples.

If I were a disciple I would have said, "Bullshit!", too.

Nevertheless, not sure what this has to do with Creationism but it is insightful dialogue you have written.

I can't spell. And I spelled it so wrong that spellcheck didn't know what I was going for.

And it doesn't have anything to do with creationism. It is just a part of the bible I liked, and there were folk talking about the crucifixion, and I really like the scene when he comes back and his disciples don't believe it's him until he asks for food. I liked that scene. I like all the scenes where Jesus and his followers are all kindsa human. That's actually my favorite part of the book. The only part I didn't like about that story was that he had to go through all that shit because of who his dad was.

Like, that would have been so much more powerful if god had been like, "You fuckers killed this guy who did nothing wrong! You're such douchebags! I hope you learn a goddamn lesson!"

Rather then, "The fuck did you do to my kid?"

Because the first one teaches you not to do fucked-up shit because it's wrong to do fucked-up shit.

The way it stands now, it teaches you not to do fucked-up shit because you never know when someone might have powerful connections. Not to refrain from evil for the sake of your own morality, but because it might bite you in the ass when the guy you've fucked over happens to be from a powerful family and you didn't know it.

 

[hogjack]

... if god had been like, "You fuckers killed this guy who did nothing wrong! You're such douchebags! I hope you learn a goddamn lesson!"

God does not curse or use foul language.

 

[kbate]

God does not curse or use foul language.

It states in various versions of Genesis that God Cursed Man and Cursed Woman and then banished them from the presence of God.

sounds to me like he said, "Fuck off."

 

[phrodeau]

I can't spell. And I spelled it so wrong that spellcheck didn't know what I was going for.

And it doesn't have anything to do with creationism. It is just a part of the bible I liked, and there were folk talking about the crucifixion, and I really like the scene when he comes back and his disciples don't believe it's him until he asks for food. I liked that scene. I like all the scenes where Jesus and his followers are all kindsa human. That's actually my favorite part of the book. The only part I didn't like about that story was that he had to go through all that shit because of who his dad was.

Like, that would have been so much more powerful if god had been like, "You fuckers killed this guy who did nothing wrong! You're such douchebags! I hope you learn a goddamn lesson!"

Rather then, "The fuck did you do to my kid?"

Because the first one teaches you not to do fucked-up shit because it's wrong to do fucked-up shit.

The way it stands now, it teaches you not to do fucked-up shit because you never know when someone might have powerful connections. Not to refrain from evil for the sake of your own morality, but because it might bite you in the ass when the guy you've fucked over happens to be from a powerful family and you didn't know it.

Jesus had to die in order to atone for the sins of mankind.

He couldn't have crucified Himself. There's no way to hammer in the last nail.

 

[hogjack]

It states in various versions of Genesis that God Cursed Man and Cursed Woman and then banished them from the presence of God.

sounds to me like he said, "Fuck off."

Very unlikely. God is articulate and has the advantage of knowing several languages. My guess is - even at his most disappointed - God said something like, "Darn it, that's enough! You two get the blankety-blank out of here."

 

[kbate]

Very unlikely. God is articulate and has the advantage of knowing several languages. My guess is - even at his most disappointed - God said something like, "Darn it, that's enough! You two get the blankety-blank out of here."

I suppose you must be right. I am impressed with your knowledge of God, his ways and his purposes. I wish I hadn't been thrown out of church for being queer, then I could know things about God too.