It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Actually Darwin's theory of evolution comes with lots of questions. You'll find Atheists and agnostics ask a lot of questions regarding the origin of Earth and how we got here. We don't just blindly follow a faith that's thousands of years old and a little suspect in the facts & proof department.
I've got nothing against people that want to be sheep until they start using their beliefs to harm people.
Thankfully I'm in a committed relationship with reality....
https://strangenotions.com/rejecting-the-swoon-theory-9-reasons-why-jesus-did-not-just-faint-on-the-cross/
Find me one medical expert who can refute this just one and I will rethink thecswoon theory
Until then ... since you all think I have a kindergartner knowledge in this... I will write out the lyrics to reading rainbow
Take a look
It’s in a book
A reading rainbow
The only proof here is proof of how those of faith are willing to bend reality in an attempt to support their own framework of "reality". That, in itself, is very educational.
So you are saying every historian is wrong... now who is bending reality Patb
Not every historian, just the phoney historians that truly are apologists that you keep bringing up. You fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge that the Bible makes claims... Which cannot be used as evidence for themselves.
other sectors of society are openly ridiculed for doing the same thing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
Please explain how Dr Simon Gathercole Is wrong
As he points out even pagan contemporaries point out how Jesus lived...
And the theist argument starts floating back to the surface
Also Dr Bart Erhman who I believe is agnostic wrote a book pointing out how Jesus indeed exist
https://books.google.com/books/about/Did_Jesus_Exist.html?id=hf5Rj8EtsPkC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
Shall I bring in more historians... some of which are atheists.. who no doubt believe Jesus actually existed.
That's actually up to him to demonstrate that Jesus was real. You know you cannot prove a negative one has to demonstrate the positive claim beyond doubt. But I'd happily say that I find Jesus's existence plausible and even likely. Or to be more precise: that there was a historical Jewish philosopher named Jesus on which the Biblical Jesus is based on. That doesn't make it certain beyond any doubt, mind you, neither does it mean any extraordinary claims regarding him are even remotely true... Or that his doctrine is moral (I'd argue that it's in many aspects amoral but I digress). I'd also say that a warlord named Arthur might have existed who inspired the Arthurian legend and the mythical King Arthur. But Merlin I'm afraid is complete fiction even though I have seen Merlin's tomb (and took pictures of it).
Funny thing that the article is accompanied by a picture of Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth. Powell deserves to receive royalties for every Church that use his image to promote Jesus. He's made a more compelling portrait and likeable of Jesus than the Bible itself!
And I never denied Jesus's existence.I'm not entirely convinced that he did exist but I'd personally place the odd in favour of his existence than against. But I'm NOT a mythicist and never claimed to be. The issue with your posts is that you go from "many people believe Jesus was a real person" to "therefore he was God and all the rest of the Bible is true". It's a ludicrous jump and an asinine argument.
Err does anyone know how you go about getting someone sectioned?
You seem convinced that if you can disprove a hypothesis I casually tossed out there months ago, that Jesus might not have even been dead when they took him down, then you have proven everything in the bible is true.
I never said I believed Jesus was alive when they took him down just that it's not impossible. Stories like this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2032591/Woman-comes-back-to-life-after-being-dead-for-17-hours.html are ten a penny so in the absence of anything resembling definitive proof my mind is open.
In any event, and to repeat @Ludovico's points above, why do you think proving that Jesus existed solves anything?
In fact none of us even mentioned Jesus we asked for proof of the existence of God but you immediately swerve that tricky one and latch onto sketchy historical accounts of a bloke called Jesus living around that time who probably did exist and probably was crucified.
Forget Jesus the monkey and let's see you wheel out some 'scientists/historians' (I use those words extremely loosely here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/interview-with-simon-gathercole-on-the-gospel-of-judas-and-the-gospel-of-thomas/) who can demonstrate the historical veracity of his organ grinder father. Surely there must be some world renowned 'scientists' out there who have proven the existence of talking snakes?
'An asinine argument' very succinctly put @Ludovico and actually sounds like an almost Flemingesque title that would be absolutely perfect for your upcoming thesis @Risico007 (that we're all still waiting for).
Peace.
I've always wondered what you look like. I can wonder no more!
Plus, I think @TheWizardOfIce has been watching The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) recently. However, it does specifically say at the start that it is not based on Scripture.
I wonder who?
If his thesis research is as good as it is in this thread... he's doomed. Unless he's at Trump University.
@Dragonpol Last Temptation is based on the Scriptures. At least it's inspired by it. Freely but still.
Very freely at the end I would say when he comes off the cross and goes off with Mary Magdalene. The film was controversial for good enough reason after all!
It's a pedantic argument to make though. That part has no basis in the Scriptures at all. Unless we're reading from different Bibles here?
And I'd also argue that many Christians know more and identify themselves more with these adaptations than the Bible. They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.
On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
Blockbuster isn't a term I've seen used for religion much, I have to say.
Sometimes it's difficult to make the difference. Back when I was a devout Catholic Jesus of Nazareth did more to keep my faith strong than the Bible. Reading it afterwards I thought it was just weak source material.
I thought only the other Chuck was God.
Or is it like that disappearing lab scene in Moonraker and you had bolded it but you later removed it just to make me look silly? ;)
I'll have to give in and say I was distracted as I was replying on my phone and only took a cursory glance at the highlighted words. I was having a little joke at my own expense there of course, hence the wink eye emoji. I find a little humour eases the tensions on this thread now and then.