Will be thrown out of the International Court also since this alleged prosecution and execution is solely based on hearsay.

There isn't even circumstantial evidence of this. And this guy is a member of the Judiciary?

What makes you so sure of that? The quran?

No. The Bible. It says - The Gospels according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John.  So you see, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write them. They were narrations of others quoting Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Plain old fashioned Hearsay.  Case dismissed for lack of evidence.

impossible! If God was executed, who running the world?  

So when Jssus was executed and did not ascend into heaven for 3 days, was the world without a god? Who decided then who who die and who should live? Did people die during those 3 days?

I can understand if the guys believing in an Abrahamic divinity have problem with the above since they are fixated on a personal god in their universe but you...a hindu....with direct statements answering the question in the Gita....Krishna said "I am the universe"....god has no inside or outside no beginning or end....etc and the jiva being Atman and Atman being Brahma etc etc!!!! You as a hindu should never ask such a silly question. The answer is why your religion exists.

Lawd ave mercy.

He can show u.

The dead come out a the graves and walked around in Jerusalem. Suh, u can sey peter pak was in force. The demons tek over de place. Other than the Jews, every body else din call God. Mohammad saw an opportunity to rival the Jews suh he started his islam business. He could not find ppl to kill after he threatened them suh he set his rage on the ppl that follow the teachings of Christ. He can't sway the believer, suh he converted hindus to islam suh dem can do the fighting for him.

I am not going to address the part of your statement about dead people walking around Jerusalem just in case madness is contagious   but I have a question about your part about Muhammad setting his rage on people who follow the teachings of Christ. If you were to look at all the people killed in the world since the coming of Jesus, who would you say have killed more people. Christians or Muslims?

Given that Mohamed was born about 6 centuries later, you do know how to falsify the account . If you even out the period and start from when Mohamed was born then it muslims have murdered more people. But as muslims tend not to allow for record keeping and drawings to be made of such events, only the Christian ones are documented.

Hitler was a devout Muslim. He has the record

He was a reversed Hindu. He even believed in a caste system based on an Aryan race.

Adjusting for that difference would not help you since most of the Christians' mass killings took over the past few decades. Like more than 600 years after Muhammad walked the earth.

I never thought that I would ever find Saggaboy being brighter than anyone else but even he did not touch the question for fear of its entrapment. But you had to go get caught in the web.

Who is asking for help? It's you. No matter how you twist and turn it, muslims have murdered more people than Christians in the last couple of decades. I get the feeling that you are watching Al Queda TV for your information.

The Swastika also revealed he was believer of the ancient religion. People may think that hinduism is an Indo religion. It is not. The tribe moved from Western Europe, stopping along the route to the Punjabs with their pantheon of gods and godesses, Indra being in the same stature as Zues. Stayed a while in modern day Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia giving them practices of worship of stones and wooden images. 

They finally came upon the civilizations of Harappa and Mohen-Daro. At the time in the same stature as Sumer. They destroyed whatever they could and began the teachings of their religion in the Punjabs. As they did in Middle-east. Men who knew the recitations by heart were considered to be Brahmins and considered to possess the SACRED THREAD. And for young Brahmins, there were initiation rituals.

They took the teaching to the other regions of India.

I can honestly say these fellas doan know God or Allah as they called the Devine Being. The demons that possesses some ppl can be contagious-just like the man who pleaded with Jesus to free him of the demons within his soul. The demons had to go somewhere, and they went into the pigs. I ain't going to allow nobody's demons to attach themselves to me.

I may not be BRIGHT as the champion of Islam. Allah will honour him with many virgins for his brilliance.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mohammad knew the God of Moses and Abraham and Ishmael. And he counted killings of ungodly ppl for righteousness. And he mauraded around doing just that. Just like Moses did until his last breath. Moses killed so many ppl, the Devil thought he had the rights to his body and soul. And Arcangel Gabriel fought him for the body.  

Confusion back then is just like today. We dress our bodies differently but our minds NEVER changed towards the things of God.

The Old Testament is FUL FULL of killings and those are the Books that Mohammad delved into. Is like the contemporay mass killers we know of today-their minds are saturated with mayhem. Hitler and Osama bin Laden.

Killing is such an agenda, that the muslim go to great trouble to sey that Ishmael was the one who was going to be slaughtered by Abraham. No even realizing that was a pagan ritual in the region.

Christ NEVER took up a sword. His remarks as quoted in the New Testament, "Let the dead bury the dead."

Simply, he said, unless a person find this God and not some fallable person, they are as dead as can be.

Now yuh clutching at straws.   Why not just consider today or yesterday only. Just for good measure, why not just consider the days when Christians kill others including other Christians. In America and the UK where you live, most of the people now (say now because it is only a matter of time before Muslims are most of the people ) kill others whether it is their spouses, kids neighbor or someone random. They are mostly Christians killing other Christians. And at a substantially greater rate than all the Muslims in the entire world.

But do yourself a favor and just disallow all that data in your frenzy.

Like I always say, most of what you write is madness but we are all free to express our madness.

What do you think Christ meant when he said "let the dead bury the dead" Yall duz prappa entangle ya'll self.

Doesn't this Kenyan litigant know about the statute of limitations? His lawsuit will be thrown out again on the grounds of millennia-late filing.

Moreover, the Israeli government has nothing to do with Christ's "killing" and the Italian Government is not accountable for actions of the Roman Empire.

Actually there is no statute of limitation on murder. However, there is no physical or even circumstantial evidence that a murder had taken place. It is all hearsay. No eyewitnesses. The Gospel states that all the disciples were fearful and fled. None of them saw Jesus being crucified nor saw him being taken into the sepulchre nor rising from his demise. All plain and simple hearsay. Now that is not admissible in a court of law.

Wha you na shet you puppa por-key? Who ever said I was a practising hindu? Not because I was born a hindu means I am a hindu? What a jack ass! Who the hell are you to tell me what to do. Stop living off of your babies' mamas. Go back to your buck man reservation and hunt monkeys for dinner and also resume taking your prozac! 

ksazma, the reason why I used the word killing with apostrophe marks is because I myself don't believe Jesus died on that cross.

Some medical analysts opine that the spear wound and the nail perforations on Jesus' hands and feet couldn't have killed him.

Interestingly, some Muslims -- notably Ahmadiyyas -- claim sympathizers rescued Jesus from the cave/tomb and he then travelled to India in disguise and lived there for many years. In Kashmir there is a tomb which Ahmadi Muslims claim Jesus is buried in.

Many years ago in Berbice there was a Muslim missionary named Dr Haroon who posted paid ads in the papers claiming Jesus died in India.

Another thing: The Bible cannot account for Jesus' biography between ages 12 and 30. Some researchers say Jesus spent those 18 years studying comparative religion in India.

Originally Posted by Danyael:

Originally Posted by skeldon_man:

Originally Posted by TI:

impossible! If God was executed, who running the world? 

So when Jssus was executed and did not ascend into heaven for 3 days, was the world without a god? Who decided then who who die and who should live? Did people die during those 3 days?

I can understand if the guys believing in an Abrahamic divinity have problem with the above since they are fixated on a personal god in their universe but you...a hindu....with direct statements answering the question in the Gita....Krishna said "I am the universe"....god has no inside or outside no beginning or end....etc and the jiva being Atman and Atman being Brahma etc etc!!!! You as a hindu should never ask such a silly question. The answer is why your religion exists.

Wha you na shet you puppa por-key? Who ever said I was a practising hindu? Not because I was born a hindu means I am a hindu? What a jack ass! Who the hell are you to tell me what to do. Stop living off of your babies' mamas. Go back to your buck man reservation and hunt monkeys for dinner and also resume taking your prozac!

Isee the little racist piggy has come out to play. I wonder If I should retort that you should go back to the Sudra setting in India and celebrate your expertize in communal defecation?  But you continue with the practice albeit in different ways. Cant take you out of your pig shi.t without some of the crap remaining.

Being ignorant of what is your native religion is unforgivable. You had to have considers  it is some context if you decided to abandon it. One does not abandon ones cultural moorings on a whim.

Further, my memory is not as faulty as yours but I would like to remind you of your indignation at warrior misspelling the Ramayana as "ramine" ( as if Indians do not call it that on a daily basis) earlier. If you feel competent to advise others; I can highlight for you the sententious nation of such protestations. You ace an ignoramus here as well.

As for your personal attacks; it is what it is. You are definitely typical of those small minded prick from impecunious background who cannot help but assign more importance to money  than is warranted. No other reason exists for your compulsion to use it as your index for measuring individual worth.

But what the hell does any of this  has to do with your ignorance of the present subject matter? Believe me, you bother me little with these supposed slings and barbs. It simply demonstrates poor taste on your part and, improper upbringing. Worse it shows an incapacity to flip the switch on you incessant racism and grovelling to inform me you are my better... a higher caste by virtue of tribe and money. You waste your bloody time.

Originally Posted by seignet:

Christ NEVER took up a sword. His remarks as quoted in the New Testament, "Let the dead bury the dead."

Like I always say, most of what you write is madness but we are all free to express our madness.

What do you think Christ meant when he said "let the dead bury the dead" Yall duz prappa entangle ya'll self.

KKaz this is begging the question. We discussed this before and you did not take what was said to heart but persist in the usual Islamist apologetic....and I dare say from a position of ignorance.

Let me reiterate; you do not know in what context the above was said. Jesus is by all measure a good rabbi and was not going to insist a follower break a commandment or dishonor a burial rite. If Jesus will not break the law it follows there has to be some context within which the statement was made.

There are many speculative positions available...Jesus speaking of the spiritual dead burying their own or that this is a second burial (ossuarial) and he knew the correct rites were already completed and the bones of the ancestors would not mind who lay them together. 

You take the worse explanation as its suit you but it suffers from the initial assumption that you have to invent a bad Jesus.

Originally Posted by Gilbakka:

Doesn't this Kenyan litigant know about the statute of limitations? His lawsuit will be thrown out again on the grounds of millennia-late filing.
Moreover, the Israeli government has nothing to do with Christ's "killing" and the Italian Government is not accountable for actions of the Roman Empire.

Actually there is no statute of limitation on murder. However, there is no physical or even circumstantial evidence that a murder had taken place. It is all hearsay. No eyewitnesses. The Gospel states that all the disciples were fearful and fled. None of them saw Jesus being crucified nor saw him being taken into the sepulchre nor rising from his demise. All plain and simple hearsay. Now that is not admissible in a court of law.

TThe problem with history ( in every instance of its accounting)  is no one ever takes contemporaneous notes or see to it witness  are ever present to corroborate and who will attest to the unfolding of events exactly as  another see it. It actually never happens. But history is stills something we recount and believe we have fairly good understanding it happened that way.

But if we were there and we ran away we could know he kicked the bucket since rites were performed and joseph put him in a tomb as is normal for his body to go through the usual rot cycle and a year later the burial.

Everyday we read the news from people who were not on the site but they give us the best picture of the events.

Originally Posted by ksazma:

Originally Posted by Gilbakka:

Doesn't this Kenyan litigant know about the statute of limitations? His lawsuit will be thrown out again on the grounds of millennia-late filing.
Moreover, the Israeli government has nothing to do with Christ's "killing" and the Italian Government is not accountable for actions of the Roman Empire.

Actually there is no statute of limitation on murder. However, there is no physical or even circumstantial evidence that a murder had taken place. It is all hearsay. No eyewitnesses. The Gospel states that all the disciples were fearful and fled. None of them saw Jesus being crucified nor saw him being taken into the sepulchre nor rising from his demise. All plain and simple hearsay. Now that is not admissible in a court of law.

ksazma, the reason why I used the word killing with apostrophe marks is because I myself don't believe Jesus died on that cross.
Some medical analysts opine that the spear wound and the nail perforations on Jesus' hands and feet couldn't have killed him.
Interestingly, some Muslims -- notably Ahmadiyyas -- claim sympathizers rescued Jesus from the cave/tomb and he then travelled to India in disguise and lived there for many years. In Kashmir there is a tomb which Ahmadi Muslims claim Jesus is buried in.
Many years ago in Berbice there was a Muslim missionary named Dr Haroon who posted paid ads in the papers claiming Jesus died in India.
Another thing: The Bible cannot account for Jesus' biography between ages 12 and 30. Some researchers say Jesus spent those 18 years studying comparative religion in India.

AAny first century person who has had a spear thrust through his side would have died an agonizing death.

No evidence exists Jesus lived after crucified. At least one Roman documents insist he was crucified and I doubt incomplete crucifixion was probabilistic a secure expectation.

In any event there is no evidence he lived on; not in the bible or any of the documents from contemporaneous. What ever belief system of the Christ continuing afterwards is speculation and only arose centuries later out of that speculation.

All of the founding fathers said the man was dead.

The bible does not have to account for anything. That was not the intent of the writers. They simply told the important aspects of the Christ that matters. The mundane side never interests anyone in any telling of a story.

The Koran is fore example a tome of incomplete stories; there is no narration with a beginning a middle and and end. But every Muslim finds satisfaction in it. The story suits them complete or not since it is illustrative of what they chose to believe.

I did not know that Haroon was a doctor but I did follow many of his writings when I lived in Guyana. I am aware of Jesus' lost years so maybe we are in agreement on some of your statements here.

Originally Posted by ksazma:

Originally Posted by seignet:

Christ NEVER took up a sword. His remarks as quoted in the New Testament, "Let the dead bury the dead."

Like I always say, most of what you write is madness but we are all free to express our madness.

What do you think Christ meant when he said "let the dead bury the dead" Yall duz prappa entangle ya'll self.

KKaz this is begging the question. We discussed this before and you did not take what was said to heart but persist in the usual Islamist apologetic....and I dare say from a position of ignorance.

Let me reiterate; you do not know in what context the above was said. Jesus is by all measure a good rabbi and was not going to insist a follower break a commandment or dishonor a burial rite. If Jesus will not break the law it follows there has to be some context within which the statement was made.

There are many speculative positions available...Jesus speaking of the spiritual dead burying their own or that this is a second burial (ossuarial) and he knew the correct rites were already completed and the bones of the ancestors would not mind who lay them together. 

 

You take the worse explanation as its suit you but it suffers from the initial assumption that you have to invent a bad Jesus.

Actually this is a misjudgment of me. I have no intention of inventing a bad Jesus. My position is that Jesus is no more perfect than any other man who walked this earth. He made mistakes also. I use the Bible (not some other written work) to demonstrate that Christians are mislead by thinking that Jesus is faultless and worse yet, Godlike. But so we don't get confused by the passage I asked Saggaboy about, here is that passage along with its surrounding ones. It is so clear what Jesus meant by just reading the plain English. To try to say otherwise is to be apologetic.

⁵⁷ And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.

⁵⁸ And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

⁵⁹ And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

⁶⁰ Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

⁶¹ And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.

⁶² And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Yuh appear to be a person of reasonable thinking. Before yuh make hearsay commentaries yuh should read the entire Bible. And what u do not understand, make an effort to understand. It explains itself, once u remove the layers of mans bad ways and the need for a redeemer to come.

Ancient ppl all around the globle have indicated the visitations of white men among them. That could be angels of the type that honours God or the type of the Fallen Angel.

Such things are not easy to grasp. And The Christ have said, unless yuh think like a child, the things considered mysteries are not easy to comprehend.

Originally Posted by ksazma:

Originally Posted by Gilbakka:

Doesn't this Kenyan litigant know about the statute of limitations? His lawsuit will be thrown out again on the grounds of millennia-late filing.
Moreover, the Israeli government has nothing to do with Christ's "killing" and the Italian Government is not accountable for actions of the Roman Empire.

Actually there is no statute of limitation on murder. However, there is no physical or even circumstantial evidence that a murder had taken place. It is all hearsay. No eyewitnesses. The Gospel states that all the disciples were fearful and fled. None of them saw Jesus being crucified nor saw him being taken into the sepulchre nor rising from his demise. All plain and simple hearsay. Now that is not admissible in a court of law.

TThe problem with history ( in every instance of its accounting)  is no one ever takes contemporaneous notes or see to it witness  are ever present to corroborate and who will attest to the unfolding of events exactly as  another see it. It actually never happens. But history is stills something we recount and believe we have fairly good understanding it happened that way.

But if we were there and we ran away we could know he kicked the bucket since rites were performed and joseph put him in a tomb as is normal for his body to go through the usual rot cycle and a year later the burial.

Everyday we read the news from people who were not on the site but they give us the best picture of the events.

No one know that he kicked the bucket. The people who wrote the accounts were relating what others who were not present say. That is the worse kind of hearsay. To say that someone who was not present say what happened and call it that person's account. It would make more sense if someone would say that Matthew said that someone who was present say that is what happened.

The only thing that is clear is that after Jesus was supposed to be executed, he was seen walking in the neighborhood and communicating with his disciples. That looks a lot like he was not killed but was alive. Which is another ground for dismissing the case. The murdered victim was alive. Try winning such a case in a court of law.

See whah madness yuh duz write?  No black angels in the world?

My opinion is that religion seeks to enslave the mind. We are taught that we cannot do anything without the help of some external force, be it a leader or a God. This creates a fertile environment for abuse and subjugation. I recently watched a show where a dissident of the Mormon church started gathering his own followers and at some point, he became their prophet and religious be it all. They were commanded to turn over their materials to him One family sold their house and give him the entire proceed which was $10,000. At that point, he told them that they have to prepare for war and used that 10 grand to buy guns keeping one for his exclusive use. He then decided that that family was too wicked (he thought that the woman was too dominant in that household) and must be cleansed from the flock so one night, he killed them one by one - with the gun he bought with their money. The father, mother, 18 year old daughter, 12 year old daughter and last but not least, 7 year old daughter.

All because they enslave themselves to him. Right here in the good ole USA. That is what religion does to people.

And we see how it has made Saggaboy mad.

Originally Posted by Danyael:

Originally Posted by ksazma:

Originally Posted by Gilbakka:

Doesn't this Kenyan litigant know about the statute of limitations? His lawsuit will be thrown out again on the grounds of millennia-late filing.
Moreover, the Israeli government has nothing to do with Christ's "killing" and the Italian Government is not accountable for actions of the Roman Empire.

Actually there is no statute of limitation on murder. However, there is no physical or even circumstantial evidence that a murder had taken place. It is all hearsay. No eyewitnesses. The Gospel states that all the disciples were fearful and fled. None of them saw Jesus being crucified nor saw him being taken into the sepulchre nor rising from his demise. All plain and simple hearsay. Now that is not admissible in a court of law.

TThe problem with history ( in every instance of its accounting)  is no one ever takes contemporaneous notes or see to it witness  are ever present to corroborate and who will attest to the unfolding of events exactly as  another see it. It actually never happens. But history is stills something we recount and believe we have fairly good understanding it happened that way.

But if we were there and we ran away we could know he kicked the bucket since rites were performed and joseph put him in a tomb as is normal for his body to go through the usual rot cycle and a year later the burial.

Everyday we read the news from people who were not on the site but they give us the best picture of the events.

No one know that he kicked the bucket. The people who wrote the accounts were relating what others who were not present say. That is the worse kind of hearsay. To say that someone who was not present say what happened and call it that person's account. It would make more sense if someone would say that Matthew said that someone who was present say that is what happened.

 

The only thing that is clear is that after Jesus was supposed to be executed, he was seen walking in the neighborhood and communicating with his disciples. That looks a lot like he was not killed but was alive. Which is another ground for dismissing the case. The murdered victim was alive. Try winning such a case in a court of law.

Such ignorance I have never yet encountered. The only thing leff is for Lord of the ministering angels show up at ur place.

U know, these comments u r making is the typical bilge muslims come out from their Friday prayers and make to non-muslims in Cambridge.

I think better of u. If u really know God or this Allah whom u revered, then he doan speak to ur inner man. If he did, then ur heart will be ur conscience.

Any god fearing person of ANY religion have deep conviction of the unknow pertaining to divinity.

I do not think u r an Islamist. Mohammad would have never told u be an authority on things u have no perception of.

U better check uself.

ConnnnnnnnnnnFuuuuuuuussssssseeeeeed. U ain't get it.

The Wild Flower of the Ganges got it.

 U need alot of prayers.

My relationship is to God Almighty, and because I am a sinner I need to be attoned before I enter his presence. Christ is my attonement. Idoan have

to scarifice anything.

We believe in the resurrection. Taht would make Christ walk around. I doan believe Mohammad was transported into the Heavens in the year of Lord. But I believe Enoch did and Mohammad related the same accounts.Suh, I think he tell the story. Because God said to Enoch He never to do taht again for any son of woman. Now, Christ was right there when Enoch visited heaven. More madness fuh u boi.

Originally Posted by Danyael:

Originally Posted by ksazma:

Originally Posted by Gilbakka:

Doesn't this Kenyan litigant know about the statute of limitations? His lawsuit will be thrown out again on the grounds of millennia-late filing.
Moreover, the Israeli government has nothing to do with Christ's "killing" and the Italian Government is not accountable for actions of the Roman Empire.

Actually there is no statute of limitation on murder. However, there is no physical or even circumstantial evidence that a murder had taken place. It is all hearsay. No eyewitnesses. The Gospel states that all the disciples were fearful and fled. None of them saw Jesus being crucified nor saw him being taken into the sepulchre nor rising from his demise. All plain and simple hearsay. Now that is not admissible in a court of law.

TThe problem with history ( in every instance of its accounting)  is no one ever takes contemporaneous notes or see to it witness  are ever present to corroborate and who will attest to the unfolding of events exactly as  another see it. It actually never happens. But history is stills something we recount and believe we have fairly good understanding it happened that way.

But if we were there and we ran away we could know he kicked the bucket since rites were performed and joseph put him in a tomb as is normal for his body to go through the usual rot cycle and a year later the burial.

Everyday we read the news from people who were not on the site but they give us the best picture of the events.

No one know that he kicked the bucket. The people who wrote the accounts were relating what others who were not present say. That is the worse kind of hearsay. To say that someone who was not present say what happened and call it that person's account. It would make more sense if someone would say that Matthew said that someone who was present say that is what happened.

The only thing that is clear is that after Jesus was supposed to be executed, he was seen walking in the neighborhood and communicating with his disciples. That looks a lot like he was not killed but was alive. Which is another ground for dismissing the case. The murdered victim was alive. Try winning such a case in a court of law.

Neither you or I know who wrote the Gospels but they came close to after Jesus died so they do recount a prevailing narrative of what happened in their time. That they witnessed it or not is not relevant from my perspective of a story. I do not need first hand account that Jesus lived and died to believe he did. I know he did and accept his story comes with the usual religious embellishments with supernatural events to make a religion.

That he died is also not in question to me. Romans did not do a thing halfway. There was no half crucifixion. If they say he was crucified then he was. These are the people that built Hadrian Wall, the Apian Way and ruled the world for almost a millennium. They did kill him.

That some hapless followers wanting to explain the reason their charismatic leader could be so easily be  defeated and so terribly abused needed to redeem him. They had nothing else to do but  to  but invent the resurrection. The man was there, his story was there, why not make a god. It was not unusual to make gods in those times. Everyone had a god in their family.

All religions need that, the chosen, the miraculous occurrence and the mythos of authenticated veritum, You cannot have a religion of the ordinary.  God has to select someone or come down himself and say here I am, this is how you know who I am and this is what I say you should do....all bullshit from where I stand.

Originally Posted by ksazma:

Originally Posted by Danyael:

Originally Posted by ksazma:

Originally Posted by Gilbakka:

Doesn't this Kenyan litigant know about the statute of limitations? His lawsuit will be thrown out again on the grounds of millennia-late filing.
Moreover, the Israeli government has nothing to do with Christ's "killing" and the Italian Government is not accountable for actions of the Roman Empire.

Actually there is no statute of limitation on murder. However, there is no physical or even circumstantial evidence that a murder had taken place. It is all hearsay. No eyewitnesses. The Gospel states that all the disciples were fearful and fled. None of them saw Jesus being crucified nor saw him being taken into the sepulchre nor rising from his demise. All plain and simple hearsay. Now that is not admissible in a court of law.

TThe problem with history ( in every instance of its accounting)  is no one ever takes contemporaneous notes or see to it witness  are ever present to corroborate and who will attest to the unfolding of events exactly as  another see it. It actually never happens. But history is stills something we recount and believe we have fairly good understanding it happened that way.

But if we were there and we ran away we could know he kicked the bucket since rites were performed and joseph put him in a tomb as is normal for his body to go through the usual rot cycle and a year later the burial.

Everyday we read the news from people who were not on the site but they give us the best picture of the events.

No one know that he kicked the bucket. The people who wrote the accounts were relating what others who were not present say. That is the worse kind of hearsay. To say that someone who was not present say what happened and call it that person's account. It would make more sense if someone would say that Matthew said that someone who was present say that is what happened.

The only thing that is clear is that after Jesus was supposed to be executed, he was seen walking in the neighborhood and communicating with his disciples. That looks a lot like he was not killed but was alive. Which is another ground for dismissing the case. The murdered victim was alive. Try winning such a case in a court of law.

Neither you or I know who wrote the Gospels but they came close to after Jesus died so they do recount a prevailing narrative of what happened in their time. That they witnessed it or not is not relevant from my perspective of a story. I do not need first hand account that Jesus lived and died to believe he did. I know he did and accept his story comes with the usual religious embellishments with supernatural events to make a religion.

That he died is also not in question to me. Romans did not do a thing halfway. There was no half crucifixion. If they say he was crucified then he was. These are the people that built Hadrian Wall, the Apian Way and ruled the world for almost a millennium. They did kill him.

 

That some hapless followers wanting to explain the reason their charismatic leader could be so easily be  defeated and so terribly abused needed to redeem him. They had nothing else to do but  to  but invent the resurrection. The man was there, his story was there, why not make a god. It was not unusual to make gods in those times. Everyone had a god in their family.

All religions need that, the chosen, the miraculous occurrence and the mythos of authenticated veritum, You cannot have a religion of the ordinary.  God has to select someone or come down himself and say here I am, this is how you know who I am and this is what I say you should do....all bullshit from where I stand.

Given your position on natural realities, since you are certain the Roman killed him, how do you explain that he was with his disciples after this alleged crucifixion? Or is it you don't think he was with his disciples after the alleged crucifixion?

Didn't God also said that Israel will never know anyone after Moses who knew God face to face? Yet you believe that Jesus knew God face to face. So how do you explain that Israel knew him? Was God lying? More madness

I hope those angels never show up at my door. I don't want to get mad.

Originally Posted by skeldon_man:

Originally Posted by Danyael:

Originally Posted by skeldon_man:

Originally Posted by TI:

impossible! If God was executed, who running the world? 

So when Jssus was executed and did not ascend into heaven for 3 days, was the world without a god? Who decided then who who die and who should live? Did people die during those 3 days?

I can understand if the guys believing in an Abrahamic divinity have problem with the above since they are fixated on a personal god in their universe but you...a hindu....with direct statements answering the question in the Gita....Krishna said "I am the universe"....god has no inside or outside no beginning or end....etc and the jiva being Atman and Atman being Brahma etc etc!!!! You as a hindu should never ask such a silly question. The answer is why your religion exists.

Wha you na shet you puppa por-key? Who ever said I was a practising hindu? Not because I was born a hindu means I am a hindu? What a jack ass! Who the hell are you to tell me what to do. Stop living off of your babies' mamas. Go back to your buck man reservation and hunt monkeys for dinner and also resume taking your prozac!

Isee the little racist piggy has come out to play. I wonder If I should retort that you should go back to the Sudra setting in India and celebrate your expertize in communal defecation?  But you continue with the practice albeit in different ways. Cant take you out of your pig shi.t without some of the crap remaining.

Being ignorant of what is your native religion is unforgivable. You had to have considers  it is some context if you decided to abandon it. One does not abandon ones cultural moorings on a whim.

Further, my memory is not as faulty as yours but I would like to remind you of your indignation at warrior misspelling the Ramayana as "ramine" ( as if Indians do not call it that on a daily basis) earlier. If you feel competent to advise others; I can highlight for you the sententious nation of such protestations. You ace an ignoramus here as well.

As for your personal attacks; it is what it is. You are definitely typical of those small minded prick from impecunious background who cannot help but assign more importance to money  than is warranted. No other reason exists for your compulsion to use it as your index for measuring individual worth.

But what the hell does any of this  has to do with your ignorance of the present subject matter? Believe me, you bother me little with these supposed slings and barbs. It simply demonstrates poor taste on your part and, improper upbringing. Worse it shows an incapacity to flip the switch on you incessant racism and grovelling to inform me you are my better... a higher caste by virtue of tribe and money. You waste your bloody time.

I see you are out of prozac and your babies' mamas yanked their welfare support. Now go find a real job. Theology is not your specialty.You jackass (again), not because one knows how to spell Ramayan means he is a Hindu. I do not believe in religion. However; I believe in god. Good riddance.