I don't disagree that Jesus claimed to be God but he also claimed to be king of the Jews and at the time, claiming to be king was the same as guilty of rebellion against the emperor. I've seen The Passion of the Christ and I'm well aware that the religious leaders of the time weren't exactly fond of Jesus, but if the Bible is to be seen as a valid document, it should correspond with the historical documents of the time. The documents of the time were clear in stating that anyone claiming to be king was guilty of rebellion (sedition) and the punishment was crucifixion.

Anyway, none of this proves or disproves his divinity. What it does is point out that Jesus wasn't the only one punished for such crimes. His difference was mainly in that he claimed to be dying for the sins of others so that they could potentially get the thumbs up from Saint Peter and so that God could actually look at them without cringing at the sight of sin. This claim is not unique to Jesus either.

So all we have left now is prophecy and the fulfillment thereof. Again, it doesn't seem like a fair game when prophecies are made and then fulfilled within the same canon, even if they are in different books. Since the canonization was done by men and parts were left out, what evidence do you have (besides saying it was entirely inspired by God) that it wasn't ordered to appear as if so many prophecies were fulfilled?

melanie - no worries, i've kept all the post-its.
here's the link: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

this is a really interesting way to look at things, and, when taken this way specifically, definitely helps the case for christianity.  i hadn't thought of it as being a sort of modern 'proof,' but that could also explain why many such cases do involve the subject of a christian-inspired afterlife visit.

perhaps this just demonstrates the difference between humanity and jesus.  these people came back to earth, but they now know what's in store for them once they pass on, so they don't fear death as much as they might've before.  they're not dying for our sins, they're just dying to show that it's possible to come back - if only for a litle while.

there's a twilight zone episode (hah i'll bet you were wondering when one would come up, hehe) called 'the last rites of jeff myrtlebank.'  bit of a creepy episode that was.  at any rate, it took place in what i'm assuming was the old west.  jeff was declared dead; as such, he was in his coffin at the funeral when he just sat up and started talking.  it took the town some getting used to, and a lot of them believed he was really a demon taking residence in jeff's human form.  jeff kept insisting he was the same person, and got quite angry about the town's sudden turn against him.  jeff's girlfriend, comfort (how'd you like to have that name?) was briefly skeptical about it, but ultimately believed jeff.
at the very end, the familiar twist: turns out he wasn't the same jeff after all, and some malevolent presence had found a home.

as for the visions, though, that's a big reason why i believe that religions are all just different interpretations of the same thing; we tend to see what we're familiar with (ie unlikely to find a devout christian woman's near-death experience involving ganesh or zeus & hera), so to me, it could be the true God(/dess) manifesting itself to us humans in ways that we find familiar.
it could be demons, though i guess that's a bit disheartening to me.  either way, i like having the input. (=


no worries, it happens.  i'm just surprised scott hasn't responded yet; i was really looking forward to seeing what both of you had to say on the matter.

For this one, I'm going to defer to "Truth about Religion" via YouTube-
Sorry, I have dial-up. Can't watch the videos. Can you summarize?

The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)

    And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)

    And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)

I think this is the most convincing reason that the Apocrypha is not included in the Bible; they testify themselves that nobody qualified to speak God's word during that time. It's not like a bunch of old guys sat around a table and said, "How can we make the Bible look like it's 100% accurate? I know! Let's throw out all the false prophecies! Hmmm, which books don't make the cut?"
The fact remains that prophecies were made and fulfilled, and only God could make so many accurate prophecies (even if we included the Apocrypha the percentage of fulfilled prophecies to incorrect predictions would far surpass Nostradamus). Also, God has preserved his Word to us remarkably; if you look at the figures and compare them with other works of old, you have to wonder if Someone is overseeing the preservation of these documents, despite the human tendency to err.
Caesar-written100-44 B.C. Earliest copy-900 A.D.Time span-1,000 yrs, number of manuscripts-10
Plato-written427-347 B.C .Earliest copy-900 A.D.Time span-1,200 yrs, number of manuscripts-7
Thucydides-written460-400 B.C.Earliest copy-900 A.D.Time span-1,300 yrs, number of manuscripts-8
Tacitus-written100 A.D. Earliest copy-1100 A.D. Time span-1,000 yrs, number of manuscripts-20
Suetonius-written75-160 A.D. Earliest copy-950 A.D.Time span-800 yrs, Number of manuscripts-8
Homer (Iliad)-written900 B.C .Earliest copy-400 B.C.Time span-500 yrs, number of manuscripts-643
New Testament-written40-100 A.D.Earliest copy-125 A.D. Time span-25-50 yrs, number of manuscripts-24,000 from http://www.allabouttruth.org/Origin-Of-The-Bible.htm
Could it not be plausible that God has written to us, based on this dedication to truth aforementioned? Perhaps not 100% certain, but again, we know nothing with 100% certainty. Doesn't this make the most sense?

my short answer to this is that people have gone through some pretty crazy, unnecessary, extravagant, and/or bizarre things to prove a point.
i know this sounds horribly insensitive and, if melanie is correct, then it's also a 'do-not-pass-go;-do-not-collect-$200' ticket straight to hell.

however, if jesus hadn't gone through such extreme measures, it would hardly qualify as justification where his point is concerned.  he needed to take that route in order to prove that he was who he said he is; however, if someone did that sort of thing out of principle to prove that, say, they were the virgin-born child of a race of aliens that actually created the earth, would you go along with it?
what if this had happened at the same time as jesus' crucifixion?  he claims he's the son of the Almighty Creator, which seems quite a claim. 
what if this happened tomorrow (albeit a modernised version) with someone who claimed to be the new Son of God?

(ps  if this sounds pissy, i don't mean it to; just playing - if you'll excuse the expression - devil's advocate.  it'll make for some more debate material, anyway. )


also,

(this may show some naivety on my part, but i'm gunna say it anyway because it's the impression i'm getting.  i'm planning on borrowing my parents' catholic bible so i can get what the protestant one misses; however, at this point, i'm going off of what i've seen here and through other sources.)

perhaps the point was to keep records of that time, not necessarily to claim the word of God.  they're being forthright about the section not being directly inspired when they could've otherwise tried to 'pull a fast one.'
a quote from that website directly states:
The only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint.
i do agree, that's some powerful support.


anyhow.  there you've got it.  hehe

I'd much rather wait for you to watch. :]

hahah i see; sorry then - i didn't think of it that way.
(=



do they (most christians) have to be so damn snarky & patronising about it though?  



this has always puzzled me: where does free will play into things then?
you can't question, but you're supposed to 'know'?
and isn't it normal for everyone to go through a questioning phase at some point?
what about the different denominations (interpretations) of the SAME GOD?  does this mean that the catholic god (the one i was raised on) is a false god, even though it still qualifies as christian?

i guess christianity (and heaven?) is just not for me then, because i simply cannot just take everything at face value.  (...whoops, i think it's rant-time...)
this has caused a realisation, too:  the reason i've never been able to completely accept god (any religious interpretation 100%) is because i generally feel that those who blindly follow are weak.
*if you wanna skip the rant, scroll down a bit, hah

i feel terrible for being such a harsh judge (and perhaps narrow-minded), but it's been proven to me time and time again.  the insufferable southern-baptist woman who can't decide what to eat or wear on a daily basis without consulting her bible; the lutheran guy who dumped my friend because her christianity didn't match his and she was therefore going to hell; the friends i've had who have been 'born again' and now cannot identify themselves at all as an individual because they are now 'simply the child of christ'; the ignorant lot who base a presidential vote on things that are not gunna change, like abortion (roe v. wade) and gun control and wars over 'my god is better than your god' and wars over stupid shit like oil & money & control issues.

let me be clear: i don't think that all theists are this way.
even though we tend to disagree, melanie has always been willing to listen to my religious musings until 0330 even though she doesn't have to, and i really like that she's been taking the time to thoughtfully respond to those that disagree with her on here (unlike that insufferable southern-baptist woman who can only quote scripture and fling insults and call people names and then block them so they can't tell her what a horrid, vile woman she is).  ...*cough.*
my grandmother has always been a believer, too, but she makes her own decisions when it comes to voting; her judgements are based on what's best for the country and for the people she cares about, keeping an open mind.

...so basically, i just feel that it's important to be accountable for my own actions without putting it on some unseen god or demon.  i want to have strength and knowledge that comes from within just as much as any gleaned from the God i choose to believe in.  i want to believe in something that values me as an individual, not just by my relationship to them.

selfish?  seems so.
can i change this about myself?  possibly
likely to change any time soon?  not really.  i'm not yet sure i want to.


anyhow, have at it!  hehehe