Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. sgdiehard, I have learned this 義 and 船 when I was a christian. But I also ask myself now whether all these are coincidences. Because in the chinese written language, there are thousands and thousands of words. So actually we can derive a lot of things from these thousands of words. So for example for this word 義 , the muslims can also derive it as the goat that Abraham sacrificed in place of Ishmael. For 船 the å‡ is not å…«. It's different, if we want to be specific.
what is this word å‡ ? -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
what is this word å‡ ?å‡ is a few, and not å…« eight
Meaning is very different. And you can derive many things from å‡ . It could be a few windows, a few trees, a few human beings, a few cats, a few flowers, a few stones etc
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
imdestinyz
I have no problem with religious sources, if they are sound.
But what BIC is doing wrongly is to quote all his sources from religious websites and books and insists he's being objective.
It's wrong. The correct method is to quote from both religious and nonreligious.
Thats what I do too. E.g, When i look up the age of the dead sea scrolls, i look at both religious and nonreligious sources.
correct me if im wrong... but the correct way of proving something is to look at in this case religious sources and non religious sources right? and by religious sources, shouldn't it be that we take something frm other religions and if it proves something(in this case bible) is right, then it is considered reliable content and valid prove of a event or a saying in the bible? while non religious sources means things like science and evolution theory which in itself is not even a subset of religion?
But in this case, it is taking the same source to prove the same source ma? aint that a fallacy to begin with? christianity religious source to prove christianity events is far less convincing than evidences aken from other sources right?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
correct me if im wrong... but the correct way of proving something is to look at in this case religious sources and non religious sources right? and by religious sources, shouldn't it be that we take something frm other religions and if it proves something(in this case bible) is right, then it is considered reliable content and valid prove of a event or a saying in the bible? while non religious sources means things like science and evolution theory which in itself is not even a subset of religion?
But in this case, it is taking the same source to prove the same source ma? aint that a fallacy to begin with? christianity religious source to prove christianity events is far less convincing than evidences aken from other sources right?
imdestinyz
In essence you are correct and I do agree with you.
We take christian sources only if they are sound, just like how I took christian sources about the age of the dead sea scrolls. But if a christian source says that the earth is 6000 years old because it uses another christian text (the bible) to prove its claims, then that source is committing a fallacy and I will not take it.
So I do take religious sources into consideration, only if they are sound.
BUT for a start, i just want BIC to TRY to quote from both religious and nonreligious sources cos he's not even trying....
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. Which parts of my discussions led you to believe that I have a closed mind? If you can, please show me
2. Yes I acknowledged that you say that there is currently no evidence for miracles because miracles 'are supposed to be' beyond human comprehension.
3. For muslim miracles and hindu miracles, I just want your opinion? I mean I would love to ask them if I could, but since we are on the topic of miracles, I thought it would be relevant to ask you because you do believe in a "supernatural world". Do you think their miracles are also powerful and a testimony for their respective God?
Just accept that somebody think you have a closed mind, if you accept, try to be more open, if you don't accept, continue with what you do. That is an open mind.
I know little about other religions, it is not fair for me comment. Just because I believe in a "supernatural world", it doesn't mean I also know about other Gods. you may find it relevant to ask, I don't find it relevant to answer.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Yea agreed.
My christian friends also told me faith is more impportant than facts.
Tcmc,
It's the same with atheists. For atheists, faith in naturalism is more important than facts. Example? The fact that the universe has a beginning and begs for an ADEQUATE cause, a cause that must be able to account for the existence of the universe and its properties. So how do atheist account for it? They usually don't, simply because they tend to deflect attention away from the poverty of their own worldview by focusing on attacking the Christian worldview. But once in a while those who bother to read and find out can read about how atheists BELIEVE that the universe made itself (see http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/04/19/4350284-the-self-made-universe) or else continue to believe in the debunked idea that the universe is eternal (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/did-the-universe-come-fro_b_739909.html).
And atheists rant about Christians being irrational? It's a classic case of special pleading.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Just accept that somebody think you have a closed mind, if you accept, try to be more open, if you don't accept, continue with what you do. That is an open mind.
I know little about other religions, it is not fair for me comment. Just because I believe in a "supernatural world", it doesn't mean I also know about other Gods. you may find it relevant to ask, I don't find it relevant to answer.
Good and so we can conclude our discussion. See it doesnt have to be bad like what you think it is!
1. We agree there's currently no evidence for miracles because they are "supposed to be" beyound us.
2. You acknowledged that there are miracles done by other religions too but you find it irrelevant to comment.
The end.
We do learn something out of it!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
It's the same with atheists. For atheists, faith in naturalism is more important than facts. Example? The fact that the universe has a beginning and begs for an ADEQUATE cause, a cause that must be able to account for the existence of the universe and its properties. So how do atheist account for it? They usually don't, simply because they tend to deflect attention away from the poverty of their own worldview by focusing on attacking the Christian worldview. But once in a while those who bother to read and find out can read about how atheists BELIEVE that the universe made itself (see http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/04/19/4350284-the-self-made-universe) or else continue to believe in the debunked idea that the universe is eternal (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/did-the-universe-come-fro_b_739909.html).
And atheists rant about Christians being irrational? It's a classic case of special pleading.
Before you assume naturalism and evolution are all "faith topics", why dont you really spend about 20 minutes reading the years and years of studies, research, evidence and lab reproductions?
Just spend 20 minutes.
I am not asking you to believe in all of that, but I am telling you to seriously read them up.
You can dont believe in them, but they are definitely not "faith topics"......
You're seriously misguided.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Thats true.
When the religious people ask me if any scientists know about the origins of the big bang, I say no one really knows.
It's a fact that no one really knows and it's ok to not know.
But some people have a problem with not knowing. I wonder why. Could it be pride?
Tcmc,
Is it pride for atheists to say "No one knows about the origin of the universe. Atheists don't know what caused the universe. But atheists KNOW that it cannot be God"? How does the atheist know that? By what fact or reasoning does he conclude that it cannot be God? Answer, not be reasoning, but by holding on to BELIEF in naturalism as a faith worldview. Of course, it is the same pride that would lead the atheist to violently deny that he has any faith in anything.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
å‡ is a few, and not å…« eight
Meaning is very different. And you can derive many things from å‡ . It could be a few windows, a few trees, a few human beings, a few cats, a few flowers, a few stones etc
å‡ is a simplified chinese character, invented by the communist China in 1949 to help the chinese to write chinese easily. The actual word of å‡ , is å¹¾. When the word 船， was invented, there was no simplified character!
We are indeed limited by our own knowledge. You don't know what you don't know.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
It's the same with atheists. For atheists, faith in naturalism is more important than facts. Example? The fact that the universe has a beginning and begs for an ADEQUATE cause, a cause that must be able to account for the existence of the universe and its properties. So how do atheist account for it? They usually don't, simply because they tend to deflect attention away from the poverty of their own worldview by focusing on attacking the Christian worldview. But once in a while those who bother to read and find out can read about how atheists BELIEVE that the universe made itself (see http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/04/19/4350284-the-self-made-universe) or else continue to believe in the debunked idea that the universe is eternal (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/did-the-universe-come-fro_b_739909.html).
And atheists rant about Christians being irrational? It's a classic case of special pleading.
din the christians attacked the atheist's worldview too? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Is it pride for atheists to say "No one knows about the origin of the universe. Atheists don't know what caused the universe. But atheists KNOW that it cannot be God"? How does the atheist know that? By what fact or reasoning does he conclude that it cannot be God? Answer, not be reasoning, but by holding on to BELIEF in naturalism as a faith worldview. Of course, it is the same pride that would lead the atheist to violently deny that he has any faith in anything.
BIC
1. No. TO say that we do not know is more humble that claiming to know when you really dont. Your morals are really.....mixed up.
2. I have mentioned to you before. Many atheists do not believe in the existence of the current Gods claimed by modern religions. But many of us do not rule out the possibility of a supreme being beyond the universe, IF evidence surfaces one day. This is not being prideful. This is being logical and at the same time acknowledging that we might be wrong. Let me ask you. Do you have leave some space for yourself to wonder if you might be wrong about your beliefs?
3. I mentioned in another thread that you should take 20 minutes to seriously read through naturalism and evolution before saying they are "faith subjects". Because apparently you seem to know very little about what evidence is.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Good and so we can conclude our discussion. See it doesnt have to be bad like what you think it is!
1. We agree there's currently no evidence for miracles because they are "supposed to be" beyound us.
2. You acknowledged that there are miracles done by other religions too but you find it irrelevant to comment.
The end.
We do learn something out of it!
Dont' put words into my mouth!!
I believe there are miracles so I don't bother to find evidence to prove them. You accept a miracle only because you cannot find explanation to how it happends. and you think you know enough to explain everything that is not a miracle.
I said I didn't know enough about other religions, so there is no acknowledgement about any miracles done by other religions!! You find miracles in all religions relevant to you but you don't bother to ask.
The end.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
å‡ is a simplified chinese character, invented by the communist China in 1949 to help the chinese to write chinese easily. The actual word of å‡ , is å¹¾. When the word 船， was invented, there was no simplified character!
We are indeed limited by our own knowledge. You don't know what you don't know.
It shows that you have very limited knowledge of the chinese language.
Prior to china simplifying the chinese words, the word 船 was also written as 船.
The word 船 has never been changed. It has never been "simplified". The word 八 has also always been 八 and never been simplified.
So the difference has always been there between å…« and å‡ or å¹¾. The difference is irreconcilable
-
So can we get back to the topic? How many people here believe He really did went to India....?
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Dont' put words into my mouth!!
I believe there are miracles so I don't bother to find evidence to prove them. You accept a miracle only because you cannot find explanation to how it happends. and you think you know enough to explain everything that is not a miracle.
I said I didn't know enough about other religions, so there is no acknowledgement about any miracles done by other religions!! You find miracles in all religions relevant to you but you don't bother to ask.
The end.
sgdiehard
1. "You dont bother to find evidence"? So now pls clarify CLEARLY, is there any evidence to prove your miracles in the bible? Yes or No?
2. Oh so you dont acknowledge the miracles in other religions but only acknowledge christian miracles. Well I guess muslims will also only acknowledge muslim miracles ?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
It shows that you have very limited knowledge of the chinese language.
Prior to china simplifying the chinese words, the word 船 was also written as 船.
The word 船 has never been changed. It has never been "simplified". The word 八 has also always been 八 and never been simplified.
So the difference has always been there between å…« and å‡ . The difference is irreconcilable
er... the olden version of å…« is 扒 and if im not wrong, older version of å‡ is not å¹¾ -
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
So what's the Christian perspective on the "missing" years or un-documented years of Jesus Christ ? Did he really went to India ?
Demon Bane,
It's always intriguing to entertain ideas that the church had some kind of secrets about Jesus that has been hidden from believers everywhere, or that the whole church is just being deluded for 2000 years whereas the real truth is to be found in some obscure places and believed by some obscure minority who has been censured or banned by the church. It makes for a fantastic cool story brother scenario, but that's just what it is, a CSB.
The Bible is silent and did not document what happened between the age of 12-30, and it was pretty silent between the age of infancy and 12 too, but atheists don't make noise about where Jesus was during those years before He turned 12! But the careful reader of the Bible will know that there are some indicators. For example, in Matthew 15:53 we read, "When Jesus had finished telling these stories and illustrations, he left that part of the country. He returned to Nazareth, his hometown. When he taught there in the synagogue, everyone was amazed and said, “Where does he get this wisdom and the power to do miracles?” Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?” And they were deeply offended and refused to believe in him."
What can we gather from this brief passage? Jesus returned to his HOMETOWN, in short, we went home to Nazareth. Not His birth-town of Bethlehem, mind you, but His hometown. Note also the familiarity of the people to Jesus' family members. They KNEW who His family was and His background. Did anyone say, "Ai ya, He got all these ideas from India lah!"? No, they were questioning how come He could speak so authoritatively because they KNEW He had no special training or teaching from the rabbis of the day. You can of course choose to say that this does not prove that Jesus did not went to India. Well, I think that's not for me to prove, but for those who entertain this story to prove that, while allowing Christians to point out the flaws and problems with such an idea.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
er... the olden version of å…« is 扒 and if im not wrong, older version of å‡ is not å¹¾imdestinyz
You are wrong
å…« has always been å…«.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
It shows that you have very limited knowledge of the chinese language.
Prior to china simplifying the chinese words, the word 船 was also written as 船.
The word 船 has never been changed. It has never been "simplified". The word 八 has also always been 八 and never been simplified.
So the difference has always been there between å…« and å‡ . The difference is irreconcilable
the word 船 has never been simplified, it is always a small boat with å…« å�£! since when has this word has a å‡ in it?
If you don't know, don't start talking about others having "very limited knowledge of the chinese language."
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Really???
Oh man I didnt know. ? let me check!
ya i tink so... lols... -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Demon Bane,
It's always intriguing to entertain ideas that the church had some kind of secrets about Jesus that has been hidden from believers everywhere, or that the whole church is just being deluded for 2000 years whereas the real truth is to be found in some obscure places and believed by some obscure minority who has been censured or banned by the church. It makes for a fantastic cool story brother scenario, but that's just what it is, a CSB.
The Bible is silent and did not document what happened between the age of 12-30, and it was pretty silent between the age of infancy and 12 too, but atheists don't make noise about where Jesus was during those years before He turned 12! But the careful reader of the Bible will know that there are some indicators. For example, in Matthew 15:53 we read, "When Jesus had finished telling these stories and illustrations, he left that part of the country. He returned to Nazareth, his hometown. When he taught there in the synagogue, everyone was amazed and said, “Where does he get this wisdom and the power to do miracles?” Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?” And they were deeply offended and refused to believe in him."
What can we gather from this brief passage? Jesus returned to his HOMETOWN, in short, we went home to Nazareth. Not His birth-town of Bethlehem, mind you, but His hometown. Note also the familiarity of the people to Jesus' family members. They KNEW who His family was and His background. Did anyone say, "Ai ya, He got all these ideas from India lah!"? No, they were questioning how come He could speak so authoritatively because they KNEW He had no special training or teaching from the rabbis of the day. You can of course choose to say that this does not prove that Jesus did not went to India. Well, I think that's not for me to prove, but for those who entertain this story to prove that, while allowing Christians to point out the flaws and problems with such an idea.
I'm not saying he did...I also wanna know the answer to that question....thanks for the illustration....
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
ya i tink so... lols...å…« has always been å…«.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
er... the olden version of å…« is 扒 and if im not wrong, older version of å‡ is not å¹¾what is original version of this word å‡ ?
八 is numeric, 扒 is verb, meaning to strip off, to dig up.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
what is original version of this word å‡ ?
八 is numeric, 扒 is verb, meaning to strip off, to dig up.
er... ur explaination for those 2 words are as of simplified chinese if you are explaining it that way. look up those old ah ma calendars where they tear of a peace of paper day by day, you will see the word 8 is written as wad i've told u. I tink u got a bit confused too. Original version of å‡ i tink is å‡