(1) But nor do we know that it didn't, Floo.
The onus isn't on us to show that something extraordinary didn't happen - you have to give sufficient grounds to think it did, or you just have an assertion.
The onus is on you to find out for yourself what if anything did happen.
You won't find that asking others to provide proof of what they believe because faith is an individual matter whatever form it takes.
You have to provide your own proof to show what you believe is anything but freewill choice on your part by just choosing without any personal investigation or evidence what you believe.
So stop asking others to provide what you have to decide for yourself.
(2) Yet you have never been able to produce any evidence to support this suggestion, despite making it on numerous occasions on different forums and threads. The English 11th century leader Hereward the Wake has very little written about him but he is still regarded as having lived. He is mentioned in 4 documents - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Domesday Book, Liber Eliensis and - most importantly - the Gesta Herewardi. This last is thought to have been written between 1109 and 1131 by one of Hereward's brothers-in-arms - and therefore an eye-witness account. Even if we discount everything that occurred before the Battle of Senlac Ridge, that's still 40-60 years after the events. Why should taht be any more reliable than - say Mark's Gospel - which was likely written 30-40 years after the events it records and may have been written by someone who both experienced the events, and at the dictation of someone who was there.
Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, from a vested interest group, making extraordinary claims in a vacuum of mentions from what would be considered the expected reliable sources of the area in that era. That combination of extraordinary claim, uncorroborated account and the lack of any sort of commentary from the areas that might be expected to carry such information given what we understand of that time period make your claim more difficult to accept than the accept historicity of Hereward.
That said, the prevailing opinion is that the Jesus myth is most likely based on someone real, there is enough evidence to suggest someone was preaching in that area who elicited some attention, but the supernatural elements would need an supremely high level of support for us to accept, and instead they have a highly questionable level of support.
O.
[/quote]
I think we both know Jesus was NEVER a myth. And the truth is that all history is irrelevant when it comes to proof which is in written form as to being acceptble as true.
Even then the above with the exception of Christ is not really anything to ague with against or for Christ. Because Christ is part of the individuals truth and what is more important the truth from God.
If you said you can understand all the scientific details however small which enabled a man to walk on the moon then you would be lying.
How we reason and we determine proof are two different things.
For instance:- Jesus being sent by God, how do we determine this...
He who sends is greater than he who is sent.
Jesus always makes God the centre of the praise and worship.
If you love me then you will keep my commandments. Those commandments were:-
Matthew 22:37-40King James Version (KJV)
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
Jesus teaching by example and in his commands that to love God as he did with all your being is how you show love for Jesus. He does not request man love Jesus Christ with all their being but they Love God with everything. Hence Jesus was not and never has been the one to worship as God or to love as God. You can only love Christ by following his example and loving God first.
Only the anti-christ the man of perdition would claim to be God or put himself above all that is called God. Christ did NOT do this.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
A lot of people say that Jesus had given 50 commands but he made it plain that these two summed up all the laws and teachings of the Prophets.
Furthermore God taught that the new covenant would be as Jeremiah 31:31-34.
His words within us. The Holy Spirit makes this possible.
To you... you would not fathom this when reading the bible. Because your search isn't for truth to make the change in your life. You don't feel you need God and don't want him in your life because all you can see is this life. But there is a next life and you need to make decisions where you want to spend that life and if the search for the truth is really worth it. I don't mean adopting a belief, that won't save you. I am on about sincerely searching for the truth because it will make the change for you.
