Does the name Jesus make you mad? Why ?

[Beckys_Mom]

Simon Magus.(Think that's who your talking about)

Simon? Hmm ok well it began with an S lol... Thank you for helping with the name.. It was long ago when I watched it...I just could not recall his name

[Lion6969]

I said contemporaneous. Of course the Talmud refers to him; centuries after he is alleged to have lived. Ergo: not evidence of his existence. The Romans kept very meticulous records of trial proceedings and census records of the populous; true, not all of these survive today, but nonetheless, my point was that Jesus is not recorded in any documents of the time. Scripture and oral tradition are stories; inseparable from fiction unless documentation showed otherwise, which, again, it does not.

The Talmud was a running commentary on the Torah even during his lifetime, it was always being edited and updated. Even Jesus enemies have mentioned him. Roman records are not available cause they did not survive. Yet dismiss scripture and everything else because you don't have trial records and consensus records.....not very academic but rather selective. You dismiss verbal traditions because they might be fiction, hence conspired to build a myth. You totally dismiss the fact even if a 1000 people refered to him a century later based on verbal traditions, that they would all have to have conspired and if so, it's down to you to substantiate it. Hence why it's likely he did exist in some form or another.

I'm not proving his existence or disproving it, I'm just pointing out the baggage and the selective use or demand for evidence.

The myth of aural traditions being like Chinese whispers is a misguided and incorrect stance, it only illustrates the lack knowledge on information passed verbally. For example where are the records showing jesus's trial yet you have verbal traditions about it, which lasted the written document or the verbal tradition amongst a people known to pass knowledge etc via both written and aural traditions.

[Lion6969]

The difference was that people at the time had a notorious difficulty telling the difference between illusion and "miracle".

how do you substantiate this claim, you have no proof for such claims. It's simply your opinion that they could not, it's not fact.

[Arbitran]

The Talmud was a running commentary on the Torah even during his lifetime, it was always being edited and updated.

I am aware. However, it is known very well when particular sections of the Talmud were added, subtracted, or edited. The reference to Jesus is from many centuries after his death (and yes, I do think that Jesus existed; I'm merely noting that there is no concrete evidence of this).

Even Jesus enemies have mentioned him. Roman records are not available cause they did not survive. Yet dismiss scripture and everything else because you don't have trial records and consensus records.....not very academic but rather selective.

I select documentation and objective evidence over legend and folklore, if that's what you mean.

You dismiss verbal traditions because they might be fiction, hence conspired to build a myth. You totally dismiss the fact even if a 1000 people refered to him a century later based on verbal traditions, that they would all have to have conspired and if so, it's down to you to substantiate it. Hence why it's likely he did exist in some form or another.

They would not have to have conspired at all. It has long been told that Columbus discovered the New World; this is known to be a falsehood. And yet, oral tradition and stories were passed down which claimed this, and some of us still believe it today. This is not the result of conspiracy; simply of exaggeration and misunderstanding (among other factors).

I'm not proving his existence or disproving it, I'm just pointing out the baggage and the selective use or demand for evidence.

Yes, I will demand evidence; reliable, documentary evidence being objectively preferable to hearsay and folklore.

The myth of aural traditions being like Chinese whispers is a misguided and incorrect stance, it only illustrates the lack knowledge on information passed verbally. For example where are the records showing jesus's trial yet you have verbal traditions about it, which lasted the written document or the verbal tradition amongst a people known to pass knowledge etc via both written and aural traditions.

I made no claim that the legends of Jesus are the result of Chinese Whispers (although this cannot be ruled out). I have simply noted that oral tradition and hearsay are not nearly as evidentially robust and useful as documentary evidence; a man called Hercules might have existed at one time, but the tales of his having been the son of a god, his heroic battles against vicious monsters, and his supernatural powers are more than likely exaggerations and later interpolations: additions to the legend as it grew over time. The same is with Jesus. Such a man may or may not have existed (the name, Y.H.S.W.A, passed from Greek and Latin to us as "Jesus", means "saviour"; a suspicious name, given that is his effective role in the stories, leading to the possibility that the character was invented to fill this role in the story); but whether or not a man named Jesus ever lived, or led a life bearing any resemblance to the one described in the stories of Jesus of Nazareth, the likelihood of his having performed feats of magic, risen from the dead, and ascended into the sky is virtually zero.

[+and-then]

Let's just face it. The name Jesus is a synonym for the challenge to face PERSONAL ISSUES... This is why eveyone who is upset at the name is really upset. They are afraid of what the name inplies and the ramifications behind that name, Fear is masked as anger. At the root of it is personal issues contrary to Jesus, and all the excuses people offer are just facades:

Facade: No proof he existed.

Facade: He must be something other than people think he is:

Facade: I was mentally ill and Jesus made it worse.

Facade: No science.

Facade: I'm not going to be controlled.

Facade: People have their minds made up.

Facade: I will not be imposed upon.

Facade: We should not claim Jesus as certain, but be open minded to everything else.

Behind all these facades for irritation, are masked personal issues and fear of the ramifications of Jesus concerning addressing those personal issues.

For me, this sums up the mindset perfectly.

[Arbitran]

how do you substantiate this claim, you have no proof for such claims. It's simply your opinion that they could not, it's not fact.

It is quite clear based on what can be read in history that ancient peoples, being more intrinsically superstitious in their cultural thought-patterns, mistook simple illusion and trickery for "magic" and "miracles" with a far greater frequency than is the norm now, in our science-based society. People going to a temple were baffled and astounded to hear a voice speaking from out of a statue of a god; a god was speaking to them! It was a miracle! It wasn't until much later, with the advent of scientific, rational thinking, that is was found through careful scrutiny of the statues that ingenious tubes through which priests could speak from a hidden room were inserted into the statues. Other such tricks, such as priests stealing food that was left as offerings to gods (proving that the gods ate the food; another miracle!), setting up elaborate mechanisms to make bloody tears run from the eyes of saint effigies, etc., are known throughout history. Or, on a more Jesus-related note, the purported resurrection of the dead, walking on water, and a number of other "miracles" have been performed by tricksters and illusionists throughout recorded time; in particular, I recall that witch-doctors in Africa and Polynesia have been documented to use rudimentary psychoactive drugs and tranquilizers to intoxicate and induce seemingly "paranormal" states in victims, including causing a man to appear dead, so that he could then revive him with an antidote to the anesthetic concoction he had craftily administered earlier. But I digress (I'm fascinated by these sorts of things)...

[Vatic]

Once again, those who are irritated by the name of Jesus have forgotten the topic. Why does Jesus bother you? So let's get back on the topic instead of expressing your frustrations in the tired cliche's that he didn't exist.

One thing people who are upset about religious organizations failings and abuses should realize, is that Jesus is transcending of those things for each individual who encounters Him. If you really took Jesus as a personal benefactor, your own teacehr, your own savior, then for you His value is personally profound and completely independant of the failings of any person or organization acting wrong or hypocritically in His name. For you as a person, the value of Jesus to you becomes unquestionable for you.

So the critic should realize that what is implied is nothing less than a personal relationship with Jesus, regardless of all external distractions.

I now have 34 years of living with Jesus from when i first met him in 1978. He is a teacher, a benefactor, and for me, quite a serious individual. I haven't depended on churches, individuals, rituals or doctrines. All I have depended on is MY relationship with Jesus and what He teaches me.

When I see a corrupt preacher get caught up in a scandal, do you think this represents any refelction on the Indevidual I know in Jesus? No. Jesus is real and that preacher was just a case of one more human being just acting like a sinner like so many do.

So I suggest that Jesus the person be set apart in your mind, from those acting wrongly or hypocritically in His name. It is only reasonable since Jesus always stood against such things in his earthly Ministry. He was quite hard on the religious leaders in his criticism of them. So give Jesus his own due merit.

[Arbitran]

Once again, those who are irritated by the name of Jesus have forgotten the topic. Why does Jesus bother you? So let's get back on the topic instead of expressing your frustrations in the tired cliche's that he didn't exist.

1. I happen to think that Jesus did exist.
   
2. I am not irritated by the name of Jesus, unless it is being used in a disrespectful and/or proselytizing context; in other words, I'm perfectly fine with Jesus, I just get a bit uncomfortable when people try to shove him down my throat (the same goes for Mohammed, Yahweh, or any other religiously-charged character).
   

One thing people who are upset about religious organizations failings and abuses should realize, is that Jesus is transcending of those things for each individual who encounters Him.

Nobody has encountered Jesus for two-thousand years, not since he died; if indeed he lived at all, as is, again, far from clear.

If you really took Jesus as a personal benefactor, your own teacehr, your own savior, then for you His value is personally profound and completely independant of the failings of any person or organization acting wrong or hypocritically in His name. For you as a person, the value of Jesus to you becomes unquestionable for you.

1. A benefactor is one who helps another; people who are dead, like Jesus, can't help anybody.
   
2. A teacher is one who teaches another; people who are dead, like Jesus, can't teach anybody.
   
3. A saviour is one who saves another; people who are dead, like Jesus, can't save anybody.
   
4. (What would Jesus save anybody from, even if he magically had the power to aid us from beyond the grave?)
   

So the critic should realize that what is implied is nothing less than a personal relationship with Jesus, regardless of all external distractions.

Nobody has had a personal relationship with Jesus in two-thousand years; even then, very few people in the world would have shared personal relationships with him. This is momentarily forgetting that, again, it remains debatable whether he ever existed in the first place.

I now have 34 years of living with Jesus from when i first met him in 1978. He is a teacher, a benefactor, and for me, quite a serious individual. I haven't depended on churches, individuals, rituals or doctrines. All I have depended on is MY relationship with Jesus and what He teaches me.

Distressing. Taking advice from the deceased is not a good sign. Seeing or talking to the deceased isn't a good sign either. Both imply some serious underlying problem.

When I see a corrupt preacher get caught up in a scandal, do you think this represents any refelction on the Indevidual I know in Jesus? No. Jesus is real and that preacher was just a case of one more human being just acting like a sinner like so many do.

You have no proof that Jesus is real. I think he might have been real, two-thousand years ago; but again, that's unproven. His existence in the first place, let alone his alleged magical existence now, remains unsubstantiated.

So I suggest that Jesus the person be set apart in your mind, from those acting wrongly or hypocritically in His name. It is only reasonable since Jesus always stood against such things in his earthly Ministry. He was quite hard on the religious leaders in his criticism of them. So give Jesus his own due merit.

Why should I give Jesus his own merit? For what? For what reason? And why, given his existence, at any time, is questionable?

[Vatic]

There does seem to be a compulsion for people to argue that Jesus isn't real. What is causing people to put so much energy into such a reaction to Jesus? What is eating at them?

[Painnsufferin]

The only time I say it is to exclaim, "SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS!"

[Arbitran]

There does seem to be a compulsion for people to argue that Jesus isn't real. What is causing people to put so much energy into such a reaction to Jesus? What is eating at them?

You assume very quickly that I must be antagonistic towards Jesus in order to question his existence. I have simply noted that there is very little evidence that Jesus has ever actually been a real person. Now, the real question is: what's eating at you, that has prevented you from grasping that very banal fact?

[Jinxdom]

There does seem to be a compulsion for people to argue that Jesus isn't real. What is causing people to put so much energy into such a reaction to Jesus? What is eating at them?

Do you believe in Jesus and was Jesus real are trick questions first off.

They can mean a few things. The whole son of God thing... or the whole him just being alive... and a whole slew of other things. Those are not simply yes or no questions yet when asked you are only supposed to answer yes or no.

Do you believe in Jesus can mean...

Do you think that he existed as a person? (I have no problem with this)

Do you think that he was the son of God? (I have huge problems with this)

Do you believe in his teachings? (I also have huge problems with this)

Religion takes wordplay to a higher level and it p***es people off.

[Vatic]

I like Spirit Writer's topics since they are close to the issues of conversion to Jesus. I suppose that with time I have gradually lost some connection to the conversion issues since I have followed Jesus for so long.

Several want to take the topic in the direction of whether Jesus existed. For me this is not a question I have any issue with. I know. But for people who are not believers, the very existence of their desire to question Jesus existence, strikes me as motivated. They may say to themselves they simply are being rational and looking at facts (as they understand their personal fact set) and want to be grounded in what they consider as reality. But for me, what I am thinking is that they must have some underlying motivation that they are not admitting to themselves, and that motivation is a natural aversion to the issue of Jesus for them personally. There is something they can't deal with about what Jesus the man stands for.

I have often debated he existence of Jesus and realize that I have a fact set that far exceeds the common awareness of the typical sleptics. So the debates tend to be a pattern of hearing the cliche's and then attempting to expand the awareness of the skeptic to include facts sets they aren't knowledgeable about. This typically leads to a push back and a purposeful attempt to limit the considerations to a smaller and more convenient fact set. In other words the debate become ingenuous on the skeptics part since anything that stretches their scope of considerations is simply ignored. The desire to make their point exceeeds their capacity to consider information they don't currently have or understand.

To me this is not intellectual integrity, but instead a manifestation of a desperate desire to maintain their illusions. They have a psychological NEED to protect their position regardless of any consideration to the contrary. If for a second, they might honestly conseder the possibility of the validity of Jesus, it would create for them a state of cognitive dissonance, and a virtual psychological crisis, to which they might respond in a veriety of ways. They may REGRESS to mantra like repitition of old cliche's, they may become fearfully angry, they may respond by trying to invalidate the new information, or at the very least mock it as if that makes it invalid in their minds. But I have seen them approach the brink of realization many times and fear. Thinking stops and a comedy of the irrational follows.

What I conclude is that if a person wants to debate the existence of Jesus, that they will never have real intellectual integrity in the matter until they first consider and deal with their psychological needs and those ramifications should they be persuaded concerning Jesus. Otherwise what we observe is a highly motivated need to dismiss Jesus in an intellectually dishonest manner that always ends the same way with the skeptic.

What we can say to the skeptic as a preface of such debates is the statement, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. What if I show you the reality of Jesus? What will you do then?"

Edited October 14, 2012 by Vatic

[Arbitran]

I like Spirit Writer's topics since they are close to the issues of conversion to Jesus. I suppose that with time I have gradually lost some connection to the conversion issues since I have followed Jesus for so long.

Several want to take the topic in the direction of whether Jesus existed. For me this is not a question I have any issue with. I know. But for people who are not believers, the very existence of their desire to question Jesus existence, strikes me as motivated.

Motivated, sure. By science and rational thought.

They may say to themselves they simply are being rational and looking at facts (as they understand their personal fact set) and want to be grounded in what they consider as reality. But for me, what I am thinking is that they must have some underlying motivation that they are not admitting to themselves, and that motivation is a natural aversion to the issue of Jesus for them personally. There is something they can't deal with about what Jesus the man stands for.

Do I have to have some "problem" with leprechauns in order to recognize that there isn't any evidence for the existence of leprechauns? No, I have no "aversion" to Jesus; I can recognize however, without aversion, that such a man may have existed, or may not have.

I have often debated he existence of Jesus and realize that I have a fact set that far exceeds the common awareness of the typical sleptics.

Oh really? How wise and learned you are! And humble! Saying that you know so much more than anybody else...

So the debates tend to be a pattern of hearing the cliche's and then attempting to expand the awareness of the skeptic to include facts sets they aren't knowledgeable about. This typically leads to a push back and a purposeful attempt to limit the considerations to a smaller and more convenient fact set. In other words the debate become ingenuous on the skeptics part since anything that stretches their scope of considerations is simply ignored. The desire to make their point exceeeds their capacity to consider information they don't currently have or understand.

This "information" you're "expanding" into their heads... wouldn't happen to include magic, would it? In which case, it's clear to see why there would be opposition...

To me this is not intellectual integrity, but instead a manifestation of a desperate desire to maintain their illusions. They have a psychological NEED to protect their position regardless of any consideration to the contrary.

Considering that the majority of atheists you'll meet, particularly here, are former Christians, it is safe to say that they have considered the contrary with great scrutiny, which, incidentally, typically leads to their atheism; something which you don't appear to have tried.

If for a second, they might honestly conseder the possibility of the validity of Jesus, it would create for them a state of cognitive dissonance, and a virtual psychological crisis, to which they might respond in a veriety of ways. They may REGRESS to mantra like repitition of old cliche's, they may become fearfully angry, they may respond by trying to invalidate the new information, or at the very least mock it as if that makes it invalid in their minds. But I have seen them approach the brink of realization many times and fear. Thinking stops and a comedy of the irrational follows.

The only comedy of irrationality here is your performance; trying to act like you have even the slightest clue what goes through an atheist's head. You act like some high-and-mighty psychoanalyst, so intellectually superior to everyone. I mean, you self-proclaim yourself to be vastly more intelligent than the rest of us. And yet, your actual informational content and reasoning abilities are remarkably vacuous and sub-par.

What I conclude is that if a person wants to debate the existence of Jesus, that they will never have real intellectual integrity in the matter until they first consider and deal with their psychological needs and those ramifications should they be persuaded concerning Jesus. Otherwise what we observe is a highly motivated need to dismiss Jesus in an intellectually dishonest manner that always ends the same way with the skeptic.

What idiocy. Again, one needn't think of the "psychological ramifications" of questioning the existence of leprechauns, or Hercules. It is very simply questioning the existence of the person in question, on a basis of objective reality. Did Jesus exist? Maybe. I personally think he did. But it is equally notable that there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of this; ergo, it is far from clear that he really did exist. Psychology needn't come into this at all; that you seem to think it must only betrays something about your cognitive processes that, ironically, could indicate some underlying psychological distress.

What we can say to the skeptic as a preface of such debates is the statement, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. What if I show you the reality of Jesus? What will you do then?"

What an idiotic statement. Sure, if one were to show me the reality of Jesus, living, today, and that he possessed magical powers that could not be explained as illusion and/or trickery, then I would perhaps concede that such a being exists (though it would still be questionable, given the fact that magic would be very difficult to prove experimentally). However, again, all this would be monumentally difficult to demonstrate objectively; scientifically. You certainly couldn't prove that Jesus was/is (whatever) the son of a god, given such a claim is unfalsifiable. At any rate, if you could somehow demonstrate all this, objectively, and have it pass cleanly through peer-review, then sure, I would accept it, like any other thing that has been proven scientifically. Although, again, it is preposterously unlikely for this to happen... so I won't hold my breath. My bet? You're bluffing. And rather poorly. But then, you're just the smartest person in the world, aren't you?! You know the absolute truth! You're more informed and intelligent than any other person in the world! Do me a favour: if you think you can really talk to Jesus, ask him which is right, M Theory or E₈ Lie group unified theory; it's something that the alleged creator of the universe should know.

[Vatic]

Arbitran, this IS a topic about psychology: "Does the name Jesus make you mad?" I put forward my observations on that topic. Do you have any contribution in that respect? Why are you compelled to change the topic?

[Arbitran]

Arbitran, this IS a topic about psychology: "Does the name Jesus make you mad?" I put forward my observations on that topic. Do you have any contribution in that respect? Why are you compelled to change the topic?

If the name Jesus actually made people made it might be about psychology; since it is overwhelmingly clear that this in not the case however, psychology needn't be drawn into this. You put forward your "observations" as if they were fact; and that you flippantly declared yourself to be smarter than all of us only clarifies that. Yes, I have contributions towards the topic, and have already given them. My current contribution however is challenging your "contribution". Why are you compelled to avoid that?

[Vatic]

Arbitran, it is very common for followers of Jesus to encounter anger at the mention of Jesus Christ. Why would you say this isn't true? I pesonally have witnessed many angry responses to Jesus. For instance I was involved in Messianic Ministry, which is a ministry for Jewish believers in Jesus. In the course of things I have encounters with jewish individuals who did not believe in Jesus. A significant proportion of the responses would be anger. In fact, there were classes offered in the local Temple, Synagogue and Shule were the Jewish people were taught how to deal with Evengelism for Jesus. One of the primary tactics taught was to be intolerant and angry toward Evangelist and utterly discourage any further discourse. What is their problem?

In another setting, a lady I used to correspond with, would become angry and constantly label anyone who followed Jesus as a hypocrit. What was her problem?

I recently watched a video about a man who encountered Jesus. In the early 70s, the Jesus Freak movement was in full bloom, and he encountered a hippy girl who gave him a pamplet while he listened to the music the Christians were making in a park. Hedidn't say why he was angry, but instead simply wanted to make the point to the hippy girl that he was angry that she gave him a pamplet to read, and contemptuously throw it down on the ground for her to see how angry it made him. What was his problem?

These things are real observable issues. For you to suggest it is not happening, is reflective of a mindset trying to isolate itself from reality. Why is that?

Here is the video I mentioned. Why did he "hate Christians"? Why was he uncomfortable being "too close" to them? Why was he angry at the hippy girl for anding him a pamplet? You can find many videos of people encountering Jesus on You Tube by doing a search "Saw Jesus" in the search box.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Vatic

[darkmoonlady]

Jesus as a possible historical figure doesn't make me feel anything, if he existed his actions ended with his death, if he didn't he's a mythical figure which again doesn't influence me personally. His followers on the other hand I do feel a lot of feelings about. It ranges from some followers are wonderful people with whom I am friends or family to some of his followers are influencing legislation that affects myself as well as others negatively. Some of his followers are awful human beings who live lives speading hatred and intolerance. The other words on your list don't mean a whole lot to me because I am not a follower of Jesus, so for me it's like a foriegn language. Whether others believe in those words or not doesn't mean much to me because it's their faith they are practicing not mine.

[Arbitran]

[double post]

Edited October 14, 2012 by Arbitran

[Arbitran]

Arbitran, it is very common for followers of Jesus to encounter anger at the mention of Jesus Christ. Why would you say this isn't true? I pesonally have witnessed many angry responses to Jesus.

I was referring to the people here. Anyone else is irrelevant to the topic.

For instance I was involved in Messianic Ministry, which is a ministry for Jewish believers in Jesus. In the course of things I have encounters with jewish individuals who did not believe in Jesus. A significant proportion of the responses would be anger. In fact, there were classes offered in the local Temple, Synagogue and Shule were the Jewish people were taught how to deal with Evengelism for Jesus. One of the primary tactics taught was to be intolerant and angry toward Evangelist and utterly discourage any further discourse. What is their problem?

The Jewish people have varied and justifiable reasons for perhaps responding negatively towards Christianity. This is no surprise.

In another setting, a lady I used to correspond with, would become angry and constantly label anyone who followed Jesus as a hypocrit. What was her problem?

The same problem you seem to have: making broad assumptions about groups of people.

I recently watched a video about a man who encountered Jesus. In the early 70s, the Jesus Freak movement was in full bloom, and he encountered a hippy girl who gave him a pamplet while he listened to the music the Christians were making in a park. Hedidn't say why he was angry, but instead simply wanted to make the point to the hippy girl that he was angry that she gave him a pamplet to read, and contemptuously throw it down on the ground for her to see how angry it made him. What was his problem?

Hard to say. Could have been just about anything, really.

These things are real observable issues. For you to suggest it is not happening, is reflective of a mindset trying to isolate itself from reality. Why is that?

Again, I did not say that some people do not respond with anger towards mention of Jesus. In the cases you've mentioned, it sounds however as though it is a more significant response to Christianity, not to Jesus. But again, I was referring to the fact that nobody here responds angrily to the mention of Jesus; given the topic is only relevant to those of us who respond to it, bringing anyone else into the mix is unimportant. Why do you insist on defensively indicating those people whom I have not referred to in the first place?

Here is the video I mentioned. Why did he "hate Christians"? Why was he uncomfortable being "too close" to them? Why was he angry at the hippy girl for anding him a pamplet? You can find many videos of people encountering Jesus on You Tube by doing a search "Saw Jesus" in the search box.

[media=]

[/media]

Again, it was a response to Christianity, not Jesus. Many people become uncomfortable being "too close" to Christians (or proselytizing members of other religions, for that matter); it is more to do with the fact that people don't like being proselytized to. I mean, how comfortable is the average person when Jehovah's Witnesses arrive at their door? Not very. And someone who perhaps experiences frequent exposure to this may be more likely to respond negatively: out of sheer aggravation.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Arbitran

[Abramelin]

you cant know until you have tried. besides those who get physically ill or angry when they hear Jesus's name may have something wrong with them. its called intolerance or demonic posession i guess.

I know of people who were in a situation like I described.

[Abramelin]

So you agree with me, good! Now take your belief out of it and points raised were there is no evidence for his existence, this alone does not suffice as proof of Jesus not existing does it. Based on lack of evidence you can hold any belief you like, but you can't categorically say he did not exist. You can say there are reasons to believe he did not exist, and the counter is there are reasons that he did exist, and cases can be presented either way.

Jesus is spoken about and talked about by so many people over centuries etc from relevant regions to other parts of the world etc.

To suggest he did not exist would also suggest that there was an almost global conspiracy on an unpresidented scale and over 100s of years. If so then you also have to prove that conspiracy with proof and reasoning.

People, for many centuries, thought the earth was flat.

That something or something is believed in for a long time doesn't make it more true.

[Abramelin]

When you watch trick by people such as Dynamo...

Walk on water..

Walks down a building..

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy9Ylzc3Jps

And many more like it - Levitation, walking through glass etc etc..

If he was back in the times of Jesus, I am willing to bet that many would think he was from god or gods son too...

My point is.. I think that if this Jesus was real, he may have been the Dynamo of his day and a few of the stories exaggerated from tales past around...

Great! And that second video... we know it's a trick, but still, the guy must have steel balls to walk down the building like he did, and trust whatever was helping him perform the trick.

[Vatic]

Here is one are we have not addressed: The degree to which the person invoking Jesus is responsible for the anger he provokes in others.

We can't assume all believers are some kind of cool smooth Guru types that when they mention Jesus, there is no basis for anyone to be anything besides mellowed out. You've seen it, I've seen it, the believer who with a toxic vibe in his attitude, uses Jesus name in such an offensive way, that you can't blame the person he is directing himself to, for getting mad.

Now click the video and listen to this wonderful wonderful song while you read the rest of what I have to say:

http://youtu.be/CNQXQKflJNA

Another case is the "fanatic conundrum". Fanatics are wonderful, if you have the patience to deal with them. But most people lack that kind of patience and the fanatic just wears them out! There is always an issue going on with a fanatic in his piety vis a vis everyday life. Keeping a fanatic reasonable can be exhausting. But fanatics, in their own wonderful way, play an important role. They are open demonstrations of the power of God to be transformative in a persons life. When you see the drug dealer, overnight become a spokeperson of jesus, YOU KNOW something wonderful ahs happened. You just can't blame the man for his ecstatic state of mind and his excited preaching. The fanatics aren't usually very deep or knowledgable, but they make up for it in passion. Their existence is the testimony of the redemptive power of God for every man.

BUT, the fanatic can make a person lose their patience. Nobody is immune to Fanatics. We love them, but even believers, parents, spouses, skeptics, police, preachers and on and on, can lose patience with our beloved fanatics. I have written proverbs about fanatics:

Bryson 1:1 "I may be a fanatic, but I have a good act."

This is for the fanatics themselves to realize they come on so strong! if they can channel that passion to motivation, yet polish up their approach, then we have the best of both. A fanatic soul and the cool spirit.

Bryson 1:2 "Never argue with a fanatic, you make him stronger."

Just the chance to talk about Jesus with ANYONE is all the fuel the fanatic needs added to his fire. We should be aware of this and hold our peace, because in the fanatics spirit is a mighty move of God and we can't face such a strong force the fanatic himself can't even control. Right our wrong, the fanatic is on fire! We should rejoice, but understand this is going to take a while for the fanatic to calm down and get on track.

Bryson 1:3 "You may not agree with a fanatic, but having one around keeps your mind on the subject."

Have you ever noticed how confused the fanatic is? He can't hardly process what is happening to him. It is so powerful, it is making him burst out in fire of the spirit! Yet he is still unlearned. Almost everything he says will be utterly incorrect and nonsense in the conventional sense. But you can't argue with that spirit moving him. Everyone will be talking about how crazy so and so has become and how he has so many mistaken ideas. But look at what happens to people who have a fanatic around them. They quietly start seeking God, restoring themselves in faith, praying privately and returning to their churches, repenting of wrong doing and other such things. They never agreed with a word the fanatic said, but they felt the spirit in him, and desired to return to God themselves!

Sure the fanatics makes you mad. But God bless those fanatics because they remind us so much of the salvation of Jesus and the redemptive power of God to change our lives for something holy and pure.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Vatic

[Abramelin]

Simon Magus.(Think that's who your talking about)

Acts of Peter

The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a more elaborate tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the Forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he levitates up into the air above the Forum. The apostle Peter prays to God to stop his flying, and he stops mid-air and falls into a place called the Sacra Via (meaning, Holy Way), breaking his legs "in three parts". The previously non-hostile crowd then stones him. Now gravely injured, he had some people carry him on a bed at night from Rome to Ariccia, and was brought from there to Terracina to a person named Castor, who on accusations of sorcery was banished from Rome. The Acts then continue to say that he died "while being sorely cut by two physicians".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus