[Long Cut]

I'll try to be polite, your insulting tone notwithstanding.

"Well, gosh, when a historian, or anyone for that matter says that: "Jesus did not die on the cross" it is a blasphemy. "

No, it is something else: a theory. It can, presumably, be proven or disproven by facts and observations of events and records. If the statement can be disproven by OTHER facts and observations, then do so, by all means. Simply calling it "blasphemy" however, misses the point. I presume that it also relieves you of the burden of providing proof that the statement is false, which I note that you have not.

"I'm not aware of this artifical separation of history and theology clause you seem to be citing as a defense of blasphemy."

It is hardly artificial. Or do you deny ANY difference between proven fact and belief based upon faith? It is hardly possible to equally compare the two.

"Either "Jesus did not die on the cross" is a blapshemy or it is not. "

It is not. It could be offensive to one of the faithful, but that hardly constitutes blasphemy. It also does NOT invalidate the statement.

"Make a stand man and quit wiggling around like a spineless worm."

Unworthy of response. I can see that you are unwilling to discuss this with any degree of objectivity. Does one unproven hypothesis so shake your faith, that you attack it so? Refute it on the merits, use some facts, but please, spare us the Hellfire and Brimstone. It hardly contributes to the debate.

[CCWoody]

I'll try to be polite, your insulting tone notwithstanding. ~ Long Cut

Well, it is nice to be corrected by those who engage in emotional based argumentation.

On your side of this argument, the side opposed to Orthodox Christianity and opposed to the Lord, I have been labeled:
1. A one man Inquisition.
2. Called "anal"
3. etc.

In short, it would be nice if your side of the argument did a little more than try to be polite and a little less dependent upon emotionalism.

No, it is something else: a theory. It can, presumably, be proven or disproven by facts and observations of events and records. If the statement can be disproven by OTHER facts and observations, then do so, by all means. Simply calling it "blasphemy" however, misses the point. I presume that it also relieves you of the burden of providing proof that the statement is false, which I note that you have not. ~ Long Cut

Excuse me. First it was stated by your side of this argument that unless something was true then it could not possibly be taught. I shredded that bit of insanity quickly. Now, you are putting forth the idea that theories cannot be blasphemous. Excuse me while I get a good chuckle.


• Theory ~ A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Let's examine this blasphemous "theory" (from the back cover of the book):



• Is it possible Christ did not die on the cross?

• Is it possible Jesus was married, a father, and that his bloodline still exists?

According to the authors of this extraordinary provocative, meticulously researched book, not only are these things possible-they are probably true! So revolutionary, so original, so convincing, that the most faithful Christians will be moved;....

All I can say is wow. The mere fact that there are those from your side of the argument who have called such blasphemous screed fascinating and interesting leads me to believe that many on your side of the argument don't even believe the Bible.

If, Jesus did not die on the cross, then the Bible itself is a lie and anybody who believes that they can find any comfort in what it contains is a fool.



• 1 Corinthians 15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,...

Quite obviously, if Christ did not die on the Cross, then He did not become the Propitiation for anybody's sins and there is no gospel. So, this blasphemous "theory" makes the gospel a lie and your faith vain foolishness. It turns the truth of God into a lie.


• 1 Corinthians 15 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!"

It is not. It could be offensive to one of the faithful, but that hardly constitutes blasphemy. It also does NOT invalidate the statement. ~ Long Cut

It is and I have proved it with direct statements from the Bible itself. It renders your faith empty and futile according the the Word of God, unless you want to now directly blasphemy God by calling Him a liar.

Unworthy of response. I can see that you are unwilling to discuss this with any degree of objectivity. Does one unproven hypothesis so shake your faith, that you attack it so? Refute it on the merits, use some facts, but please, spare us the Hellfire and Brimstone. It hardly contributes to the debate. ~ Long Cut

From the jacket cover of the book:

According to the authors of this extraordinary provocative, meticulously researched book, not only are these things possible-they are probably true! So revolutionary, so original, so convincing, that the most faithful Christians will be moved;....

I guess that the only logical conclusion is that this book has moved you. You don't even recognize blasphemy when you see it, but resort to emotional based arguments.

Woody.