believe. not know. you said "all i know" when you ment "i believe". i wish religious wackos would stop mixing the two.

I never thought i'd be back

Been keeping busy of late
attending Christian meetings, working on Christian education (for myself), just preparation
how about you?

blasphemy! according to priests of yesterday, you'll burn in hell in agonizing pain. according to priests of today, you'll be forgiven. according to priests of tomorrow, who knows? the important thing is that the message of the bible doesn't change

"blasphemy! according to priests of yesterday, you'll burn in hell in agonizing pain. according to priests of today, you'll be forgiven. according to priests of tomorrow, who knows? the important thing is that the message of the bible doesn't change"

Jesus, you know, that man who was in the Bible and stuff, well he liked to forgive people. Did it alot. Told other people to do it more often too. So yeah, to conclude, the biblical message hasn't changed much

> Translucent Night wrote:

> Been keeping busy of late
attending Christian meetings, working on Christian education (for myself), just preparation
how about you?<

Between jobs again, but I took a course to improve my chances.
Been reading the Sikh holy book a little, iy's referred to as the tenth (or last) guru. It's odd for a Bible, they've intentionally altered it as time passes to keep relevant with the age (I think). Some parts are very different, like one part that's about how equality is impossible.

Christian education? Sunday school but bigger?

@Deci there is actually quite a few Non-christian sources that cite Jesus as an actual person. Among them are Josephius(Jewish), Plinoy (I think he's roman) and half a dozen other guys ..I can point out a site that shows more sources if youl like.
They make references perscribing him personally, and in some cases (such as Josephius' case) told of him preforming socery (a Jewish perspective).

@Fokker, no more like Christian defense, some bible study, etc. I think i've set myself that i'm going to seminary

If you guys like, Case for Christ deals with alot of these issues XD

WFS, there are far more then 2 verifable reliable sources. Though I'll concede that there is some claim that the Josephius one was tampered abit, many of the skeptic believe that the orginal account is still well psererved, and that still doesnt account for the others that are well documented.

I also agree with you that there seems to be a concurrence with Science and Religion. We're also  seeing quite a revival ofscience in the here and now. Well known scientists are developing convergence of science and God, people such as Kirk Durston, Behe, etc (there is a long list people) are creating quite a buzz in the scientific world (they are mainly dealing with Biology). So to say that this issue was a past I think is unfair, since this now becoming a revived topic in Christian intellectual circles.
Reason being, the discovery of the Genome and Genes have really been a strong case for Creator. It's actually a very good time for Christians

god bless

WFS: I think your incorrect in saying there are only 2 reliable sources. What makes them very reliable is the time when they were written, the reliability of the people who wrote them, and if that style written is consistent all the way through with that person (don't want fogeries).  A dozen of them were written in the first century . Some of the best known writers are Plinoy, Jocepius, Tacitus and Suetonius. I'm am unsure if there are multiple copies of them, but i would assume so, this is something I'll look into too (some of them were written as texts). I only know that the dating for them is very early and shouldnt be discredited due to lack of copies. If there were only one or two accounts this wouldnt be possible, but since there are a dozen reliable people writing about this man, in a way they corroborate the existence of Jesus Christ in history.

Quoted Quoted by Craig L. Bloomberg
(10) A dozen or so non-Christian writers or texts confirm a remarkable number of details in the Gospels about Jesus' life-that he was a Jew living in the first third of the first century, born out of wedlock, a self-styled teacher who became very popular, selected certain men as his inner core of disciples, disregarded Jewish dietary laws and ate with the despised, enraged certain Jewish leaders, even though believed to be the Messiah by others, was crucified by Pontius Pilate but believed to have been raised from the dead by some of his followers who began a fledgling religion that never died out.  Some might argue that this does not seem like a lot of detail but in a world in which almost all historical and biographical writing focused on kings, emperors, military generals, people in institutional positions of religious power, famous philosophers whose "schools" had long outlived them, and, more generally, the well-to-do and influential, it is remarkable that Jesus gets mentioned at all by first-through-third century non-Christian writers.  Before the legalization of Christianity in the fourth century, who would have expected this obscure, crucified rabbi to produce a following that would one day become the religion adopted by the greatest percentage of people on earth?

Deci: being a man, doesnt discredit him for also being fully God mind you deci

"I think your incorrect in saying there are only 2 reliable sources. What makes them very reliable is the time when they were written, the reliability of the people who wrote them, and if that style written is consistent all the way through with that person (don't want fogeries).  A dozen of them were written in the first century . Some of the best known writers are Plinoy, Jocepius, Tacitus and Suetonius. I'm am unsure if there are multiple copies of them, but i would assume so, this is something I'll look into too (some of them were written as texts). I only know that the dating for them is very early and shouldnt be discredited due to lack of copies. If there were only one or two accounts this wouldnt be possible, but since there are a dozen reliable people writing about this man, in a way they corroborate the existence of Jesus Christ in history."

Suetonius made a compendia, that's merely a sort of encyclopedia of all known knowledge to preserve it from the barbaric people who were then invading Europe. So he's not a source on the matter of Christ..
Tacitus wasn't born when Jesus was around (or still an infant), so he's not really a source either..
Plinius is indeed a source, and so is Josephus..
And really, a text tradition is equally important as what you named. I'm studying history (medieval and early modern history), so I think I'm entitled to say that I know at least a bit of the matter of sources