Why Did Jesus Come To The Earth?

[goodlife]

Jesus was not an imaginary person. He really lived as a man on earth. “In ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the [actual existence] of Jesus,” notes the Encyclopædia Britannica. So just who was Jesus? Was he really sent by God? Why is he so well known?

[Peter Pedant]

// Grasscarp, no one person's belief has any more validity than another's// Jomifl

I am sorry I have to protest at this non sequitur

I may believe that Germany invaded Poland Sep3 1939
and you may not
however the belief is empirically verifiable

and the fact that you dont believe it doesnt mean it didnt occur on that date - sorry two or three negatives nestling together in that one

[naomi24]

Grasscarp, //to say people are gullible and sycophantic is not disparaging? //

Well, I was talking about dogma initially, but since you have insisted on making this personal, no, it isn’t disparaging. It’s an accurate observation.

You believe in something for which there is no evidence simply because someone else told you it’s true. That is gullibility.

The criteria for your entrance into heaven is that you worship God unconditionally – so you worship him because you think he will reward you. That is sycophancy.

Cupid said, “I know that my redeemer lives” – and you agreed with her. What are you expecting him to redeem you from? Your sins perchance? Enter the guilt factor.

The only insult here is a self- inflicted one. You insult your own intelligence and your own innate ability to reason, so if you’re offended when someone else recognises what you’re actually doing don’t blame them - blame yourself. This is what you choose freely to do.

[grasscarp]

Naomi 24 you say

Well, I was talking about dogma initially, but since you have insisted on making this personal, no, it isn’t disparaging. It’s an accurate observation.

Your claim that you were talking about dogma before is inaccurate. You were talking about people. I am not making it personal you were. It did not say dogma, it talked about feelings and those nasty and disparaging comments about sycophancy, fear, guilt etc. It is not an accurate observation it is the world according to Naomi24. Big difference.


You believe in something for which there is no evidence simply because someone else told you it’s true. That is gullibility.

You have no idea what I believe in. Trust me. I am not gullible and I am astonished that you think you know so much about complete strangers.

The criteria for your entrance into heaven is that you worship God unconditionally – so you worship him because you think he will reward you. That is sycophancy.

This is a sweeping statement on your part. You know nothing about entrance into heaven or about my worship. You are getting way above yourself to tell people what they believe. To tell me what I believe in and call me a sycophant is not only inaccurate, it is abusive.

Cupid said, “I know that my redeemer lives” – and you agreed with her. What are you expecting him to redeem you from? Your sins perchance? Enter the guilt factor.

I ageed with Cupid. That has obviously annoyed with you that two people can agree with each other - so you have to add your nasty jibes. I can only feel sorry for you.

The only insult here is a self- inflicted one. You insult your own intelligence and your own innate ability to reason, so if you’re offended when someone else recognises what you’re actually doing don’t blame them - blame yourself. This is what you choose freely to do.

what are you talking about here Naomi? a meaningless jumble of words.

I have obviously got under your skin, and for that I make no apologies.

[naomi24]

Grasscarp, my claim that I was talking about dogma isn’t inaccurate. Jomifli tried to tell you that but you didn’t want to listen. There have been no nasty jibes - on my part at least – simply an honest assessment of religion as I see it. You set out in the beginning for an argument with me, as you always do, and you were determined to be offended, as you always are. However, rest assured you never get under my skin.

methyl, //the fundamental fact that Jesus Christ was a real person.//

That’s not a ‘fact’.

[Khandro]

Re. the existence of Jesus; //That’s not a ‘fact’.// Give it up naomi, you're making a fool of yourself.

[naomi24]

Khandro, really? Do you have evidence that I’m missed? If you do, I don't mind making a fool of myself at all. I'd love it to be a fact! That would certainly go a long way to clearing up all the uncertainties. Tell me more.

[1ozzy]

//Do you have evidence that I’m missed?//

Nah, doubt it.

[naomi24]

haha! Oops. *I've*

[1ozzy]

Thought that's what you meant ;-)

[naomi24]

.... but you never know. ;o)

[1ozzy]

It is a strange world in which we live..

[naomi24]

It is indeed.

[jomifl]

PP, None sequitur? ....
When a belief becomes a verifiable fact it isn't a belief anymore it is fact. My statement referred was to beliefs, not facts.

[jomifl]

^please delete the word 'was'

[jomifl]

PP, the Oxford dictionary defines 'belief' as the acceptance that something is true without proof.

[Khandro]

naomi; //Do you have evidence that I’ve missed?// Sure! but what ? on here?
There a sense by which neither of us can prove anyone existed, if one were to follow conspiracy theories (as you seem to have a tendency to do). People say that Shakespeare didn't exist, but that doesn't nullify Hamlet.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Sure! but what ? on here? //

I know of no other method of communication between us - so yes please - if it's not a conspiracy theory you're talking about, on here would be good.

[1ozzy]

//People say that Shakespeare didn't exist, but that doesn't nullify Hamlet.//

So did I waste all those years at school reading that crap and writing essays about it?
Damn!!

[1ozzy]

Maybe I'd have been better off reading Dr Suess and writing essays about his work. At least we know he did exist.