Thread: 5 minutes before he dies.

An old man is in bed at the hospital with lung cancer. Surrounded by his wife, children, family and friends when the doctor walks in and tells them the grim news that they should say their goodbye's now as he may not make it through the night. They each say a tearful goodbye. The man says goodbye to his wife last and then asks them all to leave so their last memory of him will be a smile. After he has had his favourite meal specially made for him by one of the nurses, the man lays there knowing that when he closes his eyes he may not ever wake up again.

Even though he has always been an truly unquestioning atheist with no interest or experience in religion, his mind naturally turns to the existence of god. With only the time left between now and when he falls asleep the man decides to hide his true beliefs, take the chance with nothing to lose and begins to pray to god. First he asks the lord to make sure his family stays safe and well and reminds the lord that he is a good man and has never done any harm to anyone. Next he apologises to the lord as he has not always believed in him. Lastly he asks the lord for forgiveness for his lack of faith and hopes that he (the lord) will indeed forgive him and grant him a place in heaven. He drifts of to sleep.

So my question is...... Would god forgive the man and give him a place in heaven even though he had only started having any faith 5 minutes before he dies ?

----------------------------------

Red Dwarf Youtube link on how we would all like to reacted if we ever came face to face with the grim reaper. Only 3 minutes long, very funny.

Yes of course he would! :wink: God would not hold anything against him.

Even though he is hiding his true beliefs ? He is simply trying it on because he has nothing to lose.

Yep, although God knows His true beleifs anyway. Though I truly doubt anyone on their death bed would doubt Him. I'm sure we all know the old saying "Why did the chicken cross the road" and 2 minutes from death do you realise what it means.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

So my question is...... Would god forgive the man and give him a place in heaven even though he had only started having any faith 5 minutes before he dies ?

Two things here:
1. Christians often make it appear as if you have to had been a Christian all your life to win the favor of God, but this is not so.
2. If it weren't really sincere, then he really wasn't really asking for forgiveness, was he? I don't know if he is going to be forgiven, but I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

Even though he has always been an truly unquestioning atheist with no interest or experience in religion, his mind naturally turns to the existence of god.

Sounds as if you think we are all born with some predilection in favor of there being a God, even though for some it takes a lifetime minus 5 minutes to realize this. Is it natural for an atheist to turn the other cheek when confronted with death? I suppose it could be, although I do not think it would occur very often. Who knows?

If god forgives our soon to be corpse then what is the purpose of having religion? Does it really matter with 5 minutes to go whether you worshipped a god or not if God's going to forgive you? On the flip side, if a guy worships God all his life and with 5 minutes left he then blames Him for his misfortune or becomes an atheist, do you think God would forgive?

The 2 commandments will answer you!!!!!!!!!!
1- The Lord the God is supreme, adore him.
2- Love yourself as you love others only

shame on the old man puting aside his belifs at that critical moment. Why didn't he pray to all other gods that is claimd to be true. Allha and the 3000 gods of hinduism and all the ancient gods just to bee sure.

There is only one true God, and all of you at the last minute facing death (it's extremley difficult to imagine it now far from death), would turn to God, I know you would, only a true fool would doubt Him in the last minutes with their stubborn pride, but that fool would be redeemed of such a title and redeemed for whatever they wished to be redeemed for. 5 minutes before death? Other Gods? You say? There is an afterlife-just because scientists can't logically prove the exisitence of one thing or another in terms of seeing or measuring it-it is there. No one at deaths door would doubt Him, and if you disagree; when on your death bed look back at today and realise that even though you may beleive in Him the last five minutes, it would not matter if you worshipped Him all your life, you beleive in Him and that along side Jesus being your savior believed as well, is all that He would want. But who's to say heaven starts there? What about reincarnation? Lessons for the spirit-there is more to the world than meets the eye and those who do not believe are missing out on so much-do you honestly know how much happiness you can gain from singing Hymns and Christmas carols with your family? I do not agree with extreme Christians that say "You're going to burn in hell if you don't follow my religion!" etc etc, because that sets a bad example of their religion. If you do ever want to believe, take your time and don't rush it, the biggest challenge is to realise that all you do is not the power of yourself, but rather the power God has given you. The other is controlling anger- as we all know from Yoda (just trying to level ground here)-anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering-where fear is the beggining. So you still would be forgiven but for what I do not know, God has not yet granted me the knowledge to answer that. There are some things in the world better off not knowing-if we knew why God did the things He does or why He lets things continue to happen-then our minds would not be able to comprehend it. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

PS, In Hinduism there is only 1 God and the rest are all deities. See I follow all Religions and am also a scientist who believes in evolution, how do you think I know and believe this and make sense of it? Not my power I tell you that.

No doubt someone will try to combat my response-perhaps out of fear, or anger etc, but remember what that leads to. Have faith in me when I say I speak the truth.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

Even though he has always been an truly unquestioning atheist with no interest or experience in religion, his mind naturally turns to the existence of god.

why naturally! we are born atheist that is the natural way. for theists it may be natural to assume that such a thing is true. Theistic religions teach that God is always there whenever circumstances are troubling or threatening. In Western monotheistic faiths, believers are taught that God is ultimately in control of the universe and will eventually make sure that everything turns out well. Because of this, it may be understandable for an adherent of such a tradition to assume that difficult circumstances will lead to theism for everyone.
clearly it's false that every and any atheist will cry out to God or starting believing in God during times of crisis. Even if this claim were true. However, there would be serious problems with it — serious enough that theists should find it troubling.
firstly, how can such experiences generate authentic faith? Would God even want people to believe merely because they were under great pressure and very afraid?
secondly, a problem lies in the fact that extreme deathbed experiences can undermine a person's faith in a good, loving God.
I therefore dont think an atheist would even concider a god, it is supreme arrogance on you part, to say an atheist would thats almost like saying a follower of allah, would suddenly change on his deathbed to yehweh. what a crock.
(the fallacy "no atheist in foxholes" comes to mind)

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

An old man is in bed at the hospital with lung cancer. Surrounded by his wife, children, family and friends when the doctor walks in and tells them the grim news that they should say their goodbye's now as he may not make it through the night. They each say a tearful goodbye. The man says goodbye to his wife last and then asks them all to leave so their last memory of him will be a smile. After he has had his favourite meal specially made for him by one of the nurses, the man lays there knowing that when he closes his eyes he may not ever wake up again.

Even though he has always been an truly unquestioning atheist with no interest or experience in religion, his mind naturally turns to the existence of god. With only the time left between now and when he falls asleep the man decides to hide his true beliefs, take the chance with nothing to lose and begins to pray to god. First he asks the lord to make sure his family stays safe and well and reminds the lord that he is a good man and has never done any harm to anyone. Next he apologises to the lord as he has not always believed in him. Lastly he asks the lord for forgiveness for his lack of faith and hopes that he (the lord) will indeed forgive him and grant him a place in heaven. He drifts of to sleep.

So my question is...... Would god forgive the man and give him a place in heaven even though he had only started having any faith 5 minutes before he dies ?

----------------------------------

Red Dwarf Youtube link on how we would all like to reacted if we ever came face to face with the grim reaper. Only 3 minutes long, very funny.

Geezer.

You need to be very precise with the context of Jesus, what he said, when he was a live, and then when he was dead.

He was forgiving when alive, said the Father was forgiving.

The Father had foresaken the Son, though.

Most importantly, Jesus said there is no forgiveness with the Holy Spirit, which is presumably the after-life of Jesus, as a spirit.

So, when that man dies and becomes a spirit, by definition he goes into a dimension where no forgiveness will be found.

I am thinking that is why it is important, as it was said, to forgive one another while still alive, while you have the chance, as was written.

You must understand that the answers are already there in that Book. You must question your own understanding of it if your understanding of it is indeed incorrect.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

No doubt someone will try to combat my response-perhaps out of fear, or anger etc, .

You are half right. I am inclined to combat your response, but not out of fear or anger, more out of an amused disgust.
Your self righteous certainty that a) there is a God, and b) he is the Christian God, would be offensive if I placed any value on your beliefs in this matter.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Have faith in me when I say I speak the truth.

Now at a push, going down hill with the wind behind me, Or perhaps in Cat's final five minutes, I might just be able to stretch to a faith in God. But to have faith in you, as you suggest? Don't you think you might be getting a tad arrogant there?

Cat, in response to your original question, you are making what I believe to be a risky assumption: namely that if there is a God, that he has some interest in us. Can you not conceive of a God who is wholly disinterested in us, seeing us as a side effect of some other plan he has for the universe?
Newborns cannot distinguish between themselves and the world. Very young children believe the world exists for them alone. I wonder if most theists are not suffering a similar fallacy of self importance, imagining the creator takes a personal interest in their condition.

Scientifically it can't be proven if babies are athiest or not. They cannot be questioned or polled before they are influenced.

Coming from a christian background the (christian) bible would say:

If you have a genuine declaration of faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God, died for your sins in your place, and risen again, then you seek his forgiveness for your sins as the one who paid the debt of your sin. You are "saved".

When or where is as irrelevant how long you live after your faith is put into action. The real test is what you do with the time you have left.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Geezer.

You need to be very precise with the context of Jesus, what he said, when he was a live, and then when he was dead.

jesus is an imagined concept, he never said anything.
you may subjectively believe he spoke, but it's yet to be proven he ever existed. but why, you have need to bring jesus into the debate is beyond me.

Originally Posted by couldbe(mostcertainlyis)wrong

They cannot be questioned or polled before they are influenced.

well that about says it all.
you may not be able to poll them, but you can know scientifically.
Because if you're right then every child/person on the planet would believe in the same god, wouldn't they.
so therefore they must be born without any belief in god/gods.
until they are influenced/indoctrinated/brainwashed, etc...
into any one of the tens of thousends sects, incorporated in the 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones, or one of there sects

edited to change incorrect info

Originally Posted by geezer

...into any one of the tens of thousends sects, incorporated in the 19 major religions. or one of the 260 lesser religions, or one of there sects.

Does that include pantheistic multi-person solipsism? If not could you change that count of lesser religions to 261. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by geezer

...into any one of the tens of thousends sects, incorporated in the 19 major religions. or one of the 260 lesser religions, or one of there sects.

Does that include pantheistic multi-person solipsism? If not could you change that count of lesser religions to 261. Thank you.

well I surpose any religion that believes in a creator deity, i got the number for the internet. I presume they include buddhism teoism shintoism etc.
it would be better to check with them, I very much doubt they would even call solipsism a religion.
actually my info is wrongI just double checked, this is how it should read "there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. so my bad, but if you wish to check your facts heres the link http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

I was simply answering the question as it was asked.

Everyone hasn't reached the same conclusion that you have geez. All of the rest of the world must be wrong simply because you disagree with them.

Just because a god hasn't been proven to you doesn't mean a god doesn't exist. You simply may not have seen the proof yet. The question is IF you see PROOF will you be able to accept it?

(again from a christian background)

If the chrisitan bible is true and the stories contained are true would modern men and women be any different from pharoh? While miracle after miracle and even the death of his firstborn smacked pharoh in the face he refused to see the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, as the one true god.


Side thought... If Jesus never existed why do the jewish records corroborate his birth, life and death. If any religion in the world wanted there to be no Jesus at all it would be the jews. Do you think if Jesus was an invention of the organized church that said church would have any influence over the jewish leaders who then and now continue to denounce him? Just a thought

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Just because a god hasn't been proven to you doesn't mean a god doesn't exist. You simply may not have seen the proof yet. The question is IF you see PROOF will you be able to accept it?

yes but which one.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Side thought... If Jesus never existed why do the jewish records corroborate his birth, life and death. If any religion in the world wanted there to be no Jesus at all it would be the jews. Do you think if Jesus was an invention of the organized church that said church would have any influence over the jewish leaders who then and now continue to denounce him? Just a thought

they dont, there are no historical records of jesus, all aledged ones have be refuted, if you think you have any, feel free to posit them here, thank you.

(From Wikipedia)

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote concerning the Great Fire of Rome, in book 15, chapter 44 of his Annals (c. 116):

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.


Just the idea that Christianity was such a large movement in such a short time lends credence to the existence of Christ.


It's kind of an absurd argument to say that the "church" invented Jesus years after he supposedly existed when the "church" would not have existed without his starting it. Isn't it?

(P.S. Just because an educated person says something is wrong, it doesn't make them right.)

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

An old man is in bed at the hospital with lung cancer. Surrounded by his wife, children, family and friends when the doctor walks in and tells them the grim news that they should say their goodbye's now as he may not make it through the night. They each say a tearful goodbye. The man says goodbye to his wife last and then asks them all to leave so their last memory of him will be a smile. After he has had his favourite meal specially made for him by one of the nurses, the man lays there knowing that when he closes his eyes he may not ever wake up again.

Even though he has always been an truly unquestioning atheist with no interest or experience in religion, his mind naturally turns to the existence of god. With only the time left between now and when he falls asleep the man decides to hide his true beliefs, take the chance with nothing to lose and begins to pray to god. First he asks the lord to make sure his family stays safe and well and reminds the lord that he is a good man and has never done any harm to anyone. Next he apologises to the lord as he has not always believed in him. Lastly he asks the lord for forgiveness for his lack of faith and hopes that he (the lord) will indeed forgive him and grant him a place in heaven. He drifts of to sleep.

So my question is...... Would god forgive the man and give him a place in heaven even though he had only started having any faith 5 minutes before he dies ?

----------------------------------

Red Dwarf Youtube link on how we would all like to reacted if we ever came face to face with the grim reaper. Only 3 minutes long, very funny.

the purpose of religious activity is to develop attachment to god and things related to god (like the service of god, the qualities of god etc) as opposed to developing attachment to material nature (like the service of material nature, the qualities of material nature etc)

technically there is no reason why a person cannot do this in the last 5 minutes of their life but practically it is seen that attaining such a state requires a life tim eof practice - for instance the dying man's suggestion that his family be protected could indicate that he has lingering material attachments, and thus it is more than likely his devotion to god is mixed - the result of such a mixed sttraction results in the opportunity to pursue theistic values in the next lifetime (perhaps next time around he will not be such a devout atheist)

Thanks for the replys.

As Geezer said "...it is supreme arrogance on you part, to say an atheist would..." Well I say again, you will-disagree with me all you like, you seem to want to disagree with me on purpose as if it were a challenge on this matter. Well I say again, you will disagree with me all you like, but you will at your body's end. You will you will and you will! Arrogant on my part? Ask anyone who has had an atheist member of the family die and they will tell you that in the last moment they spoke of wanting to beleive and even have-this has happened to me several times. It happens all over the world. Percieve it as arrogance as much as you will, but the truth is the truth whether you want it or not-nothing can change that, you'll see-even if it takes until you reach your death bed, you will see. Besides why deny something that can make you feel happy-granted many misinterperet religion. Time will tell on this, sooner or later, time will tell, and I have all the time in the world with my beleifs-an eternity in fact, how long with your beleifs do you have to wait? Think about this, on your beleifs, you die, and that is it-like Dawkins beleives, nothing, darkness-not even that! Nothing, just think about that, nothing, over time you are forgotten and all you become is some dead man in the sand. So what is then your point in arguing your point of view if you will be forgotten? How many historical atheists are remembered? Next to none, how many saints are there? How many have done good deeds in the name of The LORD? Martin Luther King, Churchill, Mother Teresa, Ghandi, all had religion, and how many non-believers have done great things as they? Hm? Don't you want to be remembered? Don't you want something to exist past the end of your life? All of this will go through your mind when at deaths door and then you'll see everything in a new light. Please don't deny God-you deny yourself happiness; and no, happiness is not blowing yourself up or chanting nonsense believing one to have power while bullying others into religion as quite a lot of people with religion abuse (as perhaps some will try and change my words here at this point) Remember this....

THE BIGGEST TRICK SATAN CAN PERFORM IS CONVINCING HUMANKIND THAT HE DOES NOT EXIST. So you see, he has many of you tricked to believe him-and thus denies you of being happy-hence why you come on these forums to answer something you do not believe in. So again, what is the point in giving your point if no-one listens to you except others like you-no beleiver opposes any of you, we are just sad for you that you cannot feel happy-true happiness and share that with everyone before you die, what have you to lose in believing? If more people believed and did not show it by shouting and killing each other (as often is the angered mis-interpereted opinion of religion by most non-believers), then the world would be at peace, but of course people don't have faith, or deeds, some have one or the other, some none. Only both are good enough, and your faith and deeds are rewarded, I am rewarded very generously by God and am very grateful-how many of you can say honestly that you are content with your lives? Truly? I come here not to offend, or insult (some may be and I cannot do (some will highlight this bit) anything about this-it is the way it must be). I come here to share with you my knowledge given me to help you. That is what the true power of God is, help, and love as I give you now, listen not to the devil-he has his own lessons to learn, concentrate on your own.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

(From Wikipedia)

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote concerning the Great Fire of Rome, in book 15, chapter 44 of his Annals (c. 116):

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

oh yes tacitus


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php

try again

Originally Posted by svwillmer

and all of you at the last minute facing death (it's extremley difficult to imagine it now far from death), would turn to God, I know you would, only a true fool would doubt Him in the last minutes

Maybe so, but if anyone adopts the faith in that situation then they will only be a fool for 5 minutes..........when compared to a lifetime it's at least some consolation.

so basically your saying that all of tacitus writings should be thrown out or just the part about Jesus? Just because someone doesn't speak the same way or uses a word that isn't consistently found in the literature of the time doesn't mean that it isn't authentic. Shouldn't tacticus use of the word procurature be proof that they did use that term in those times?

He didn't say Christ, he said Christus (phonetic spelling derivative from the greek)

He spoke of Christianity as a movement. He spoke negatively of Christianity. I see your point though... Why would a historian write down the the things that he see's from his own perspective.... thats just crazy

"No one refers to this passage for a thousand years" is an arguement from silence... do you really want to go down that road?

The link you posted say this, "The historical works of Tacitus are a history of the period from A.D. 14 to 96 in thirty volumes." Don't you think his observations of the christian movement so close to time of Jesus is relevant at all to the suggestion that he was real... I think if you talked with Tacitus and said Jesus wasn't a real person he would call you an idiot.

Do you think all of his writings are crap?

Again the evidence of Jesus being real doesn't have to be in the writings at all. The evidence is in the followers. Tacticus writings being rejected as well as other writings of purely historical nature being rejected could be a result of an anti-christ agenda. Couldn't they? Do you also deny the exisence of those who believed in him and knew him as human? Do you deny the existence of the early church? If the early church wasn't founded then how would the developed church be there at all to supposedly add to or corrupt histories to create a Jesus character?

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Again the evidence of Jesus being real doesn't have to be in the writings at all. The evidence is in the followers.

Logical fallacy an appeal to popularity, however we can all dream, but you have the lead on that.
There is no evidence for a historical Jesus, no matter how mush you wish it.
It has all been refuted and debunked to death.
All your beliefs are based simply on faith alone.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Again the evidence of Jesus being real doesn't have to be in the writings at all. The evidence is in the followers.

Logical fallacy an appeal to popularity, however we can all dream, but you have the lead on that.
There is no evidence for a historical Jesus, no matter how mush you wish it.
It has all been refuted and debunked to death.
All your beliefs are based simply on faith alone.

Hey Geezer

Sorry if I offend or simply am not up to speed. A good friend of mine (atheist, pretty much, like me) claims that the only reasonably authentic historic record regarding the putative existence of Jesus is by a chappie called Josephus. Do you know of this? When I read this (on a different forum, a while ago), the name quoted by Jospehus was apparently "Yeshua bin Israel" or some such, which was taken conventionally to refer to the Jesus of the Christians.

Of course, it is still tenuous stuff, but seems to point to the existence of a man who did do some preaching in the area mentioned during the time period that the New Testament (or rather The Gospels in the NT) says Jesus had his wossname - mission/thingy/whatever.

It's just that, even if a man called Jesus preached redemption and salvation and suchlike to the populace at around that time, he would only have been one of many. My understanding was that Christianity was effectively invented by Paul, and it seems quite likely to me that, if Jesus had not lived, then Paul would have used some other martyred preacher of the time (and there were many) to create the religion that he founded. After all, many of the ideas in modern Christianity (and Pauline Christianity I think, not necessarily in the Gospels) seem to have been lifted from Mithrasism, which was quite popular in the Roman Empire at the time. There's a lovely story by Kipling about this phenomenon: The Church that was at Antioch http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_antioch1.htm.

Anywho, them's my thoughts. Have at me, varlets! :P

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Well... Since you stomped your feet and said emphatically that your right and I'm wrong I guess I'll leave it alone. What I would ask you to do is to stop regurgitating other people’s opinions and research what you can find yourself from the writings. I’m pretty sure Tacitus didn’t write his histories in English either. It is very easy for us to research and find other peoples opinions/conclusions. Research from 1 to 1000 AD would have been a little more difficult as they didn't have the electricity to plug in their laptops and Google it.

Peace

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Again the evidence of Jesus being real doesn't have to be in the writings at all. The evidence is in the followers.

Logical fallacy an appeal to popularity, however we can all dream, but you have the lead on that.
There is no evidence for a historical Jesus, no matter how mush you wish it.
It has all been refuted and debunked to death.
All your beliefs are based simply on faith alone.

Hey Geezer

Sorry if I offend or simply am not up to speed. A good friend of mine (atheist, pretty much, like me) claims that the only reasonably authentic historic record regarding the putative existence of Jesus is by a chappie called Josephus. Do you know of this? When I read this (on a different forum, a while ago), the name quoted by Jospehus was apparently "Yeshua bin Israel" or some such, which was taken conventionally to refer to the Jesus of the Christians.

Of course, it is still tenuous stuff, but seems to point to the existence of a man who did do some preaching in the area mentioned during the time period that the New Testament (or rather The Gospels in the NT) says Jesus had his wossname - mission/thingy/whatever.

It's just that, even if a man called Jesus preached redemption and salvation and suchlike to the populace at around that time, he would only have been one of many. My understanding was that Christianity was effectively invented by Paul, and it seems quite likely to me that, if Jesus had not lived, then Paul would have used some other martyred preacher of the time (and there were many) to create the religion that he founded. After all, many of the ideas in modern Christianity (and Pauline Christianity I think, not necessarily in the Gospels) seem to have been lifted from Mithrasism, which was quite popular in the Roman Empire at the time. There's a lovely story by Kipling about this phenomenon: The Church that was at Antioch http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_antioch1.htm.

Anywho, them's my thoughts. Have at me, varlets! :P

cheer

the sunshine warrior

yes

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

and welcome to the forum.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Well... Since you stomped your feet and said emphatically that your right and I'm wrong I guess I'll leave it alone. What I would ask you to do is to stop regurgitating other people’s opinions and research what you can find yourself from the writings.

always done my own research.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

I’m pretty sure Tacitus didn’t write his histories in English either.

well duh! all the material, I’ve posted is using a direct translation, wow.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

It is very easy for us to research and find other peoples opinions/conclusions.

well duh! Again, and if that opinion states exactly what you think and feel, much like your choice of religion, you throw it out with the bath water do you?

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Research from 1 to 1000 AD would have been a little more difficult as they didn't have the electricity to plug in their laptops and Google it.

this is why we now know the truth, because we can verify and test evidence in a much more thorough way

The internet is not a reliable resource. It is a valuable useable resource, but not reliable. You can find sites on the net that will back up just about any theory. The world can agree with you and you and the world can still be wrong. Yes I know that statement can apply to me too.

Do you believe Paul the missionary was a historical figure?

Where do you beleive this forgery began?

What texts do you site to back up this belief?

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Do you believe Paul the missionary was a historical figure?

no. theres no external evidence.
With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some one person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Where do you beleive this forgery began?

in the first hundred years, Gospel of Mark is not an eye witness account, the gospel of Matthew was not written by a disciple, the gospel of peter was written by two very different people who never met a Jesus person. And the gospel of John is also not an eye witness account, and Luke is a copy of mark.
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's or in Brown NT Commentary e.g.

No NT author met Jesus
So,
Of the NT authors we find -
* Paul only met Jesus in a VISION,
* Several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

What texts do you site to back up this belief?

here are few for youi to scan through http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html
http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/documents/nmbr_mss.pdf
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
all checked and tested,

Originally Posted by Couldbewrong

The internet is not a reliable resource. It is a valuable useable resource, but not reliable.

you could say that about any library in any city on earth. where else do we get our info Guess! or imagine it I expect you'll go for the latter.

Geezer, please don't devalue the quality of your posts with trite personal snipes at couldbewrong.
thank you.
Ophiolite.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Geezer, please don't devalue the quality of your posts with trite personal snipes at couldbewrong.
thank you.
Ophiolite.

yes your right, it was uncalled for.
could both you and couldbewrong accept my apologies.

CARE TO REVEAL YOUR ENTIRE xbox OF IDEAS?

(use the PM, I won't say a thing)

Originally Posted by geezer

could both you and couldbewrong accept my apologies.

Happy to do so. Thank you for the prompt and pleasant response.

Can you prove you went to school, and how so.
>>>


U need to be friendly with a person on the same road as you, right?

Who are your strange, off-topic queries and remarks directed to?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Can you prove you went to school, and how so.

I can provide notarised copies of my O Level and Higher Grades, and of my class photographs for all six years of secondary school. I have no idea why I would want to, however, and therefore shan't.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

U need to be friendly with a person on the same road as you, right?

No. It is not a prerequisite of travel.
The friendly person is often seeking some personal advantage. The malcontent is often interested in revolution. (Or she may have indigestion.)

Indeed. THank you for your kindness : )

Scanning through those texts now.

Not trying to derail just a "warning" if you will pardon the term. It is a lot easier and cheaper to do a website than a book. There are numerous volumes of bad information in libraries as well. Any first person source is better as you pointed out in your rebuttal of the authenticity of the new testament (covenant) writers. But when you can't the best source is to go back to the texts yourself and evaluate. I know the value of the continuation of other peoples studies, however if a person perpetuates a mistruth it can effect an entire culture or even a world as this debate proves. Anything we believe comes back to faith and examining evidence. i.e. The moon landing, the holocaust, the existence of George Washington, all of these things that we didn't see with our own eyes are believed because of the acceptance of the evidence of their existence. There are people that deny all three of the aforementioned points. Anything that you know is based upon your believing your interpretation of the evidence. The question is will you allow yourself to be wrong. Until we humble ourselves and push pride to the side in the pursuit of the truth (whether we know it already or not) we can never gain real workable knowledge. We will remain a stalwart intellectual bully for as long as we close ourselves off to growth.

Could you respond to these points from an earlier post.

I said,"
so basically your saying that all of Tacitus writings should be thrown out or just the part about Jesus? Just because someone doesn't speak the same way or uses a word that isn't consistently found in the literature of the time doesn't mean that it isn't authentic. Shouldn't Tacticus use of the word procurator be proof that they did use that term in those times?

He didn't say Christ, he said Christus (phonetic spelling derivative from the greek)

He spoke of Christianity as a movement. He spoke negatively of Christianity. I see your point though... Why would a historian write down the things that he sees from his own perspective.... that’s just crazy

"No one refers to this passage for a thousand years" is an argument from silence... do you really want to go down that road?

The link you posted say this, "The historical works of Tacitus are a history of the period from A.D. 14 to 96 in thirty volumes." Don't you think his observations of the Christian movement so close to time of Jesus is relevant at all to the suggestion that he was real... I think if you talked with Tacitus and said Jesus wasn't a real person he would call you an idiot.

Do you think all of his writings are crap? "

Another thought. In Greek the word "christos" means anointed. References to Jesus as Jeshua Christos simply, “Jesus who is set apart." It is not an affirmation of the writer that he is actually the messiah. That is why his name appears as such in the writings of other authors from the region/time that refutes Christianity. It isn't evidence that the writing were tampered with by people who were accustomed to saying his name that way but to dumb to realize that they were saying, " Jesus the savior/messiah and his followers are dumb." It wasn't an acknowledgement of his supernatural position/authority.

I have other thoughts too but I don't want to overwhelm.

P.S. (I apologize also if anything I said was taken negatively. Edit: As I reread this post I wanted to apologize again for the way some of my previous post was worded. I didn't mean any of it as an insult to anyone. Humble apologies Again thank you for your kindness)

We have drifted seriously off-topic. (I have contributed to this as much as anyone.) I am going to let things run over the weekend - I shan't be around - and take a look on Monday. I may split the thread into two (or even three) threads.
Take care.

In ooooooooooostralia, we have a public holiday, on monday. god only knows why.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Could you respond to these points from an earlier post.

I said,"
so basically your saying that all of Tacitus writings should be thrown out or just the part about Jesus?

no, it just that they are suspect, Tacitus was after all born 37 years after his histories start, this would mean at least 50/55 years before he started writing them,
So clearly not first hand/eye witness accounts.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Just because someone doesn't speak the same way or uses a word that isn't consistently found in the literature of the time doesn't mean that it isn't authentic. Shouldn't Tacticus use of the word procurator be proof that they did use that term in those times?

there are many words new words we use now that we didn't use 50 years ago, and many that are not used any more, all language changes. Do we still refer to girls as broads, dames, we did 50 years ago.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

He didn't say Christ, he said Christus (phonetic spelling derivative from the greek)

it has the same meaning your point being.
If I had written this in Latin, would you have understood it?
* Tacitus nomen alio ut " Sarcalogos ", ( Christ, the word incarnate )ut Romanorum adsuesco assuesco is nomen Jesus , filius Joseph " vel similis (or words to that affect.)
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ"/"Christus"/"Christos", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

He spoke of Christianity as a movement. He spoke negatively of Christianity. I see your point though... Why would a historian write down the things that he sees from his own perspective.... that’s just crazy

if a historian wrote things from is perspective, it would not be a history, it would be a story, and it seems this is exactly what Tacitus did.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

"No one refers to this passage for a thousand years" is an argument from silence... do you really want to go down that road?

I have no worries, it just means that the passage was, most likely added much later.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

The link you posted say this, "The historical works of Tacitus are a history of the period from A.D. 14 to 96 in thirty volumes." Don't you think his observations of the Christian movement so close to time of Jesus is relevant at all to the suggestion that he was real

no, there may have been a priest/rabbi or priests/rabbis who went preaching to the masses.
But it most certain was not the person depicted in the NT, this person is clearly fictional, there is far to much evidence that this person was plagiarized from many other ancient religions.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong

Do you think all of his writings are crap? "

no, but there are clear discrepancy’s, either done by him or later altered/added.

edited for bad spelling

Sorry to interrupt :wink: . I joined a nursing forum a couple of days ago to confirm whether some people do turn to god or to religion toward the end of their life. There have been only 4 responses (which you can find here) all of which have confirmed that this does happen, the most interesting response being 'motorcycle mama's'......

I have seen it several times. It's kind of funny how desperation can humble people.

My 83 y/o father-in-law is a prime example. He has always boasted he is an atheist and openly ridiculed and mocked religious people. He is a very nasty person, filling over with pride.
People who are religious believe pride will get a person to hell faster than any other sin. Well, my father-in-law has a never ending supply of it.
He got sick this past summer and thought he was going to die and low and behold asked for a priest to come give him his last rites.

There is one die hard atheist I still know of in the local nursing home and I'm wondering when or if he will ever crack.

As for me, I can't say I believe for sure their is an afterlife, but I still listen to my Jimmy Swaggart tapes, just in case.

So, if you think that i think we are all born with "some predilection in favor of there being a God" I'm afraid that is your own conclusion and not mine. It is also no sign of "supreme arrogance" on my part for suggesting that an atheist may turn to god toward the end of their life, but is in fact a rare occurrence which does happen. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

An old man is in bed at the hospital with lung cancer. Surrounded by his wife, children, family and friends when the doctor walks in and tells them the grim news that they should say their goodbye's now as he may not make it through the night. They each say a tearful goodbye. The man says goodbye to his wife last and then asks them all to leave so their last memory of him will be a smile. After he has had his favourite meal specially made for him by one of the nurses, the man lays there knowing that when he closes his eyes he may not ever wake up again.

Even though he has always been an truly unquestioning atheist with no interest or experience in religion, his mind naturally turns to the existence of god. With only the time left between now and when he falls asleep the man decides to hide his true beliefs, take the chance with nothing to lose and begins to pray to god. First he asks the lord to make sure his family stays safe and well and reminds the lord that he is a good man and has never done any harm to anyone. Next he apologises to the lord as he has not always believed in him. Lastly he asks the lord for forgiveness for his lack of faith and hopes that he (the lord) will indeed forgive him and grant him a place in heaven. He drifts of to sleep.

So my question is...... Would god forgive the man and give him a place in heaven even though he had only started having any faith 5 minutes before he dies ?

----------------------------------

Red Dwarf Youtube link on how we would all like to reacted if we ever came face to face with the grim reaper. Only 3 minutes long, very funny.

Only true believers go to heaven. If the man does not really believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, then he won't go to heaven, the bible plainly shows that.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I'd like the scenario to be. You at home with your family and you hear the door bell ring. You go and answer it and there are two men with shotguns. They immediatly hit you in the face and tie you and your family up. They say they are going to kill them, unless you give them all the money, but the key to get in your safe is at the bank. What are your thoughts now?

Are they, I wonder what made these people wish to do this, I would like to run some blood and psycological tests. At least I lived a good life, and so has my wife. My children are happy so its fine if we all die now.


Or PLEASE GOD HELP ME OUT!!

Its amazing how people seem to resort to what they call irrational, and ludicris beliefs. If you can do the 1st response you are probably a robot, or the 1 anomaly in the world.


Now i'm not limiting the responses to this, but what would yours be?

at times like this one discovers the virtues of cowardice - you just hope you get out of this pretty much in one piece, never mind the dosh

i would not expect the almighty to intervene, but it would be a pleasant surprise to be proven wrong on this occasion

Originally Posted by Tony John C

I'd like the scenario to be. You at home with your family and you hear the door bell ring. You go and answer it and there are two men with shotguns. They immediatly hit you in the face and tie you and your family up. They say they are going to kill them, unless you give them all the money, but the key to get in your safe is at the bank. What are your thoughts now?

Are they, I wonder what made these people wish to do this, I would like to run some blood and psycological tests. At least I lived a good life, and so has my wife. My children are happy so its fine if we all die now.


Or PLEASE GOD HELP ME OUT!!

Its amazing how people seem to resort to what they call irrational, and ludicris beliefs. If you can do the 1st response you are probably a robot, or the 1 anomaly in the world.


Now i'm not limiting the responses to this, but what would yours be?

are we back to the inanely stupid atheist in foxholes analogy
posted this up on page one of this thread

why naturally! we are born atheist that is the natural way. for theists it may be natural to assume that such a thing is true. Theistic religions teach that God is always there whenever circumstances are troubling or threatening. In Western monotheistic faiths, believers are taught that God is ultimately in control of the universe and will eventually make sure that everything turns out well. Because of this, it may be understandable for an adherent of such a tradition to assume that difficult circumstances will lead to theism for everyone.
clearly it's false that every and any atheist will cry out to God or starting believing in God during times of crisis. Even if this claim were true. However, there would be serious problems with it — serious enough that theists should find it troubling.
firstly, how can such experiences generate authentic faith? Would God even want people to believe merely because they were under great pressure and very afraid?
secondly, a problem lies in the fact that extreme deathbed experiences can undermine a person's faith in a good, loving God.
I therefore dont think an atheist would even concider a god, it is supreme arrogance on you part, to say an atheist would thats almost like saying a follower of allah, would suddenly change on his deathbed to yehweh. what a crock.
(the fallacy "no atheist in foxholes" comes to mind)

but regarding, your scenerio, if there here to rob us with guns then they are going to kill us anyway, so asking an imaginary thing for help would be quite stupid, and a complete waste of time, I would be trying to think of a way of protecting my family and escape, and trying to reason with the bad guys, if I could. Once they start killing they loose there bargaining chip.
if they really want the money then it would be in mine and my families best interest to prolong it as much as possible.
praying would be the last thing on my mind.
_________________[

In those circumstances i think you would be more worried about your wife and kids, i don't think god or religion would enter your head for one second.

--------

Geezer, people are willing to re-think their beliefs on their death bed as i have already shown.

Hehe the best thing is often death is instantaneous, not the get 1 night to ponder. The other really good thing, is the only two sure things in life are death and taxes. So every single one of us will find out in the end. Win, lose or draw.


I for one, will welcome the end, after life is through with me. I can only hope for a quick death.

My Nan is 80 years old, so hasn't got many years in front of her. Firstly(before anyone thinks badly of her morals) she is the most generous person you could meet and has worked hard all her life, to name but two standards.

Anyway she has never believed in mumbojumbo and I fail to see that changing . In fact I said something like "maybe they are looking down on us Nan" as a joke in reply to her talking of a coincidence between my grandads birthday and my cousins wedding day. She was totally unmoved and looked at me as if to say "have you gone mad?".

English people, huh????