Let's not conflate the existence of a person named Jesus with the existence of a Jesus who can evenhandedly be said to be worth noting in any way due to his own verifiable merits and acheivements. christians so like to pull the sleight of hand that offers you the former while insisting that you accept him as the latter that this piece of deceit has almost become the basic law of christian logic.

But if the verifiable substance of that you worship defines the merit of the worship, then you would do exactly as well by attributing whatever characteristic most impress you onto any person from history who existed but about whom you really know next to nothing, and worship that person instead.

So I suggest you take a walk though the most dilapidated grave yard you can find, pick a name off of an arbitrary gravestone, assert that person to be divine, attributing whatever impresses you upon that person, and worship him/her as your personal savior.

(November 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm)solja247 Wrote: You are looking at it the wrong way.
Lets go with the assumption that Noah and Adam are fictional characters in Hebrew mythology. Why are you going to throw out Jesus?

Perhaps you should ask what makes Jesus different from Noah and Adam? If you're willing to concede that some of the Bible may be either fiction or, at best, metaphoric, why not Jesus?

Quote:Perhaps you should ask what makes Jesus different from Noah and Adam? If you're willing to concede that some of the Bible may be either fiction or, at best, metaphoric, why not Jesus?

Historical sources

AND

‎"I marvel that whereas the ambitious dreams of myself, Caesar, and Alexander should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant – Jesus – should be able to stretch His hands across the centuries and control the destinies of men and nations" (Napoleon).

(November 5, 2010 at 7:01 pm)solja247 Wrote: ‎"I marvel that whereas the ambitious dreams of myself, Caesar, and Alexander should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant – Jesus – should be able to stretch His hands across the centuries and control the destinies of men and nations" (Napoleon).

Yet Napoleon seems to hold neither the religion about Jesus (Christianity), nor the religion of Jesus (Judiasm), in high regard.

"If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god."

So it would seem Napoleon didn't think much of Jesus, and was more impressed by the chance which bought the name of Jesus more influence than the deeds of men whom we might infer he thought more deserving, such as Caesar and Alexander, then by Jesus.

Quote:Yet Napoleon seems to hold neither the religion about Jesus (Christianity), nor the religion of Jesus (Judiasm), in high regard.

Jesus does not equal Christianity. Napoleon had to hold Jesus in some sought of high regard to right the above quote.

(November 5, 2010 at 7:01 pm)solja247 Wrote:

Quote:Perhaps you should ask what makes Jesus different from Noah and Adam? If you're willing to concede that some of the Bible may be either fiction or, at best, metaphoric, why not Jesus?

Historical sources

AND

‎"I marvel that whereas the ambitious dreams of myself, Caesar, and Alexander should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant – Jesus – should be able to stretch His hands across the centuries and control the destinies of men and nations" (Napoleon).

The problem with a quote like that is that it is un-sourced... as opposed to this one which seems to say the opposite and is sourced.

Quote:Religions are all founded on miracles — on things we cannot understand, such as the Trinity. Jesus calls himself the Son of God, and yet is descended from David. I prefer the religion of Mahomet — it is less ridiculous than ours.

* Letter from St. Helena (28 August 1817); as quoted in The St. Helena Journal of General Baron Gourgaud, 1815-1818 : Being a Diary written at St. Helena during a part of Napoleon's Captivity (1932) as translated by Norman Edwards, a translation of Journal de Sainte-Hélène 1815-1818 by General Gaspard Gourgaud, t.2, p.226

Napoleon died in 1821 so his opinion on the subject from 1817 is quite late in life. Perhaps what we are seeing here is another example of what Robert G. Ingersoll meant when he said:

Quote:Orthodox Christians have the habit of claiming all great men, all men who have held important positions, men of reputation, men of wealth. As soon as the funeral is over clergymen begin to relate imaginary conversations with the deceased, and in a very little while the great man is changed to a Christian -- possibly to a saint.

(November 5, 2010 at 6:44 pm)Chuck Wrote: Let's not conflate the existence of a person named Jesus with the existence of a Jesus who can evenhandedly be said to be worth noting in any way due to his own verifiable merits and acheivements. christians so like to pull the sleight of hand that offers you the former while insisting that you accept him as the latter that this piece of deceit has almost become the basic law of christian logic.

But if the verifiable substance of that you worship defines the merit of the worship, then you would do exactly as well by attributing whatever characteristic most impress you onto any person from history who existed but about whom you really know next to nothing, and worship that person instead.

So I suggest you take a walk though the most dilapidated grave yard you can find, pick a name off of an arbitrary gravestone, assert that person to be divine, attributing whatever impresses you upon that person, and worship him/her as your personal savior.

The Jewish nation nor christianity has ever asserted that God is divine, God in all His righteousness has given us that fact if in no other forms than creation and the redemption of that creation after man brought destructive sin into it.

(November 5, 2010 at 11:30 pm)Godschild Wrote: The Jewish nation nor christianity has ever asserted that God is divine,

Then the assertion which followed from you must be completely non-Christian. I suggest you repent.

(November 5, 2010 at 11:30 pm)Godschild Wrote: God in all His righteousness has given us that fact if in no other forms than creation and the redemption of that creation after man brought destructive sin into it.

Quote:The Jewish nation nor christianity has ever asserted that God is divine

Isn't 'god' "divine" by definition?

Quote:di·vine
   /dɪˈvaɪn/ Show Spelled [dih-vahyn] Show IPA adjective,-vin·er, -vin·est, noun, verb,-vined, -vin·ing.
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2. addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3. proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.
4. godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.
5. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.

(November 5, 2010 at 7:01 pm)solja247 Wrote: Historical sources

Which are?