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
If God came to my class tomorrow, if he performed tricks which after decades of scientific scrutiny could not be proven a hoax AND if he gave me a reasonable explanation of how he did it in accordance with all the other laws "he imposed" on our universe, I would indeed accept him. So would Ludovico and the Wiz. I wouldn't, however, be a "believer" all of a sudden because I don't have to "believe" in what would then be fact. Furthermore, he would then be a subject of science, not of religion. He would finally be factually present and could be examined. He would be like atomic energy: a new field of study for science, hitherto hidden in obscurity.
Now, if God came to my class, performed his tricks but wouldn't lay out how he does them or if gave an explanation that totally defecates on all the harmonious laws of nature "of his" that we have already discovered, he would instantly be my enemy. I would suspect he neither likes us, humans, nor has good intentions with us. I could accept that he exists and then run away from whatever madness I've suddenly found myself stuck in. Once again, I wouldn't have to believe in him because he would now be fact, only a fact that I neither like nor fully "grasp". He would be like M-Theory.
However, in both of these cases, religion would be rendered obsolete. The essence of religion is to believe in something for which not even the flimsiest bit of supporting evidence exists. If God presented himself to us, belief would turn into awareness; the wish of many would turn into a fact that doesn't care whether you wish for it or not. God would finally be observed, and scientists would try to understand him and expand their views on the universe. The losing fraction would be the religious, who can no longer celebrate their willpower. They could follow God around and pledge their allegiance to him, but that would be no different than pledging your allegiance to a flag. Let me point out that even the Bible wants you to doubt its contents by deliberately contradicting itself. It wants you to believe, not to know. That's the difference between people working from a religious framework and people doing science. One group has nothing but belief to work with, the other keeps "belief" entirely out of its work.
Now I'm only joking of course but you keep on blabbering about empty tombs and "credible" eye witnesses while there's only claims of an empty tomb and claims of eye witnesses. But carry on doing "la, la, la". And good luck with that Nobel prize.
So what happened you could get 100 bucks if you disprove the empty tomb
Love your spin that some ‘silver linings’ came out of these senseless deaths. Of course a bit of a bummer for the people God kills but it’s worth it if it brings a relative closer to God I suppose.
Any chance he could come down and teach you to write in coherent English as I can’t even begin to fathom what that sentence (if indeed it qualifies as a sentence) is supposed to mean? Now that would be a miracle that might convert me into believing! Or is the Holy Spirit flowing through you and you are speaking in tongues?
Apart from anything else what does an empty tomb even prove?
Merely that the body of Christ is not in it. Even if you had 4K footage of an empty tomb it would be worthless as empirical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
And you might want to up the prize money a bit. A pathetic $100 for something that would be the most amazing revelation in history? The X Prize offers $10 million just to fly to space which is something mankind has already done. Stop being so stingy.
You don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Ra, ... What if one of them came down tomorrow? Where would that put you?[/quote]
I'm a fan of Thoth personally. Used to meditate to an image of Thoth. True story.
An Australian court has found a Catholic archbishop guilty of concealing child sexual abuse in the 1970s.
Philip Wilson, the archbishop of Adelaide, becomes the most senior Catholic in the world to be charged and convicted of the offence.
He was found to have covered up the abuse of altar boys by a paedophile priest colleague in New South Wales.
During his trial he denied being told about the abuse by some of the victims
Intriguing. So following this newfound acceptance and liberalism is the pope going to expunge this passage from Catholic catechism:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Or is he just hoping no one will notice the rampant hypocrisy?
To be fair the church has condoned homosexuality for decades as long as it is kept within the sanctity of the holy bond between priest and altar boy.
@Risico007 We don't have to come up with an explanation as YOU are the one making the claim. Not only about the resurrection of this hypothetical Rabbi Jesus, but about the existence of an empty tomb! You have an hypothetical Messiah who hypothetically died by crucifixion, was hypothetically buried in an hypothetical tomb (and not thrown in a pit for vultures and crows to dispose of his body, or simply left to rot on the cross), and hypothetically left said tomb by hypothetical resurrection caused by an hypothetical divine intervention. And what do you do to back up these claims? You repeat them. And add more YouTube videos for good measure. At least you haven't sent us more links to articles you didn't bother reading.
I don’t need to I have historical evidence on my side you all have a few crackpot theories
Name one crackpot theory we have.
But even IF we did defend crackpot theories in these here forums that would not exonerate you from having the burden of proof for any of the claims you made. You boasted to have historical evidence on your side now you admit you don't... and dishonesty say you do not need it.
And you crockpot theory of the disciples taking the body. Seriously there isn’t a shred of evidence for that
WHAT? What have you been smoking? You are the person who mentioned taking the body! All this time @DarthDimi , @TheWizardOfIce and myself have said that a conspiracy was not even necessary to create the resurrection myth! All you need is a few superstitious cultists in a superstitious time. First provide evidence of that empty tomb you keep on blabbering about.
I know you posted links to articles you never bothered reading. Do you do the same thing with our posts? And boasting again about historical evidence? How about showing them for a change.
https://crossexamined.org/10-reasons-accept-resurrection-jesus-historical-fact/
Is two enough if not I can bring 20 more
But I guess at least with these you probably read more than the titles.
Would love to see you presenting ‘evidence’ in a court of law. ‘Defence Attorney Risico’, the wise-cracking yank, whose evidence dissolves on contact with air. Would make a brilliant alternative to Judge Judy. ‘Car-Crash Court Room’ on NBC.
Come on it’s a simple question what is taking you people so long.
Same way James Bond did. Although I should note, Bond is more factual.
Lud Wiz anyone want to go through and add their own things to this theory?
Also was it one person or multiple
And when did this person or people invent it?
We will never know for sure what if anything happened. Jesus' existence itself is not a certainty. I will say it again for the record: I'm not a mythicist. I do think that it's very likely that there was a rabbi Jesus who was a Jewish preacher around that time and became the leader of a marginal cult like there were many at the times, a cult that later developed into Christianity. Now what if anything this "original" Jesus believed in comparison to his posthumous followers and what survived in Christianity from his teachings is anyone's guest.
How Christianity grew and eventually thrived is a complex subject but I can give you a few reasons, none of them of a supernatural nature: like Islam it's based on conversion and proselytism, unlike Judaism, it is thus not limited to a single ethnic or cultural group and could appeal to pretty much every subject of the Roman Empire from all social classes, its promises of eternal bliss for all who worshipped was far more palatable than the Greco-roman vision of afterlife, etc.
This is assuming there is a gap of 4-500 years between the events and the religion correct?
It would depend when you think the Christian religion was fully formed. Don't tell me from the moment of resurrection. The First Council of Nicea was in 325 so that is far less than 500 years. But then again Christianity evolved and changed a lot since then. And had changed a lot since its infancy. That is the thing: it was, and has been, a work in progress, it didn't start already set up.
Picture the scene:
Imagine we live in a world without the internet, phones, photography, video, where barely anyone can read or write, where science is in it's infancy and mystical explanations rule for anything that cannot be explained.
A preacher who proclaimed to be the voice of God is hounded by the authorities and killed.
His followers who 'believe' in him fervently then recount the events although they are a bit sketchy on the details and cannot agree on much except that he was the messiah.
Several decades afterwards someone who never met any of the eye witnesses cobbles all these accounts together in a book and hey presto the guy is declared as the son of God.
Sadly we'll never know if David Koresh or Jim Jones' followers would have written such a book that 2000 years down the line would be regarded as 100% truth by some people as they all got torched by the FBI/binged on Kool Aid. But the only difference between them and the disciples is that the disciples had to undergo none of the modern scrutiny that such outlandish claims would be subjected to today and that the population at large was far more ready to believe and accept such tales than even the backwaters of America are today.
You cannot prove that the disciples weren't just gullible members of a cult who were held in thrall by a plausible and powerful speaker and did actually believe what he told them and doing your usual trick of saying that unless we can fill in some of the gaps in a story that is 2000 years old then it automatically means Christ must have been the son of God is feeble and something you keep trying in the absence of having anything of actual substance in your locker.
Evolved and changed is rather loaded a viewpoint... the issue here is no the fundamentals of Christianity were indeed set up right after the resurrection of Jesus.. I am assuming you read the epistle of Clement right?
Or the Didache?
Or the book of Acts?
Or Paul’s letters?
Nope none of those sound familiar I take it... again there is NO GAP BETWEEN THE EVENT AND THE SPREAD OF THE RELIGION
Interesting analogy when your the one ignoring facts and grasping at straws
Another article for bed time reading
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/
Read it and you should see why your cult theory falls apart again the disciples weren’t believers in the modern sense of the word they saw the risen Christ it was a fact for them and one that caused all their death’s
Oh and as for King Arthur prove to me Julius Caesar existed or Alexander The Great....