Theism vs. Atheism: The Great Debate-1.2 Con't.
there was a special on the history channel(before 'the bible' series began to air) called the origin of jesus. they explained that texts show a roman soldier living in the same area as Mary near the time of his supposed conception. it's a well known fact that in the original, hebrew texts; virgin and young woman are the same word. if jesus was a real man then he was the illegitimate child of Mary and a Roman soldier who's name escapes me right now...but the fact remains either jesus was half roman, or the son of god was born of Jewish flesh and blood making him short, tan or dark-skinned, and brown-eyed. his lessons are worth reading, no doubt. but are they any less meaningful if they are simply man-made ideas and philosophies. i brought up the original name for him in the first sentence. his original name was Yehoshua or Joshua. yet we do not call him "Joshua Christ" or "Josh Christ" for his buddies to call him by. if the name changed over 2000 years can we even be sure we are talking about the same guy? has it ever crossed your mind that maybe all the characters in the bible are the same guy. what if Jesus didn't have 12 apostles just two men and Mary Madeline. would you be suspicious of a man claiming to be the son of god traveling with two friends and his girlfriend? sounds like some weird hippy to me. the overall point i'm making is that the bible has gotten everything wrong, yet the only thing people still cling to, is Jesus and his superpowers. they don't care about who this man really was or what his message was really about. the bible is long and confusing. if you took two chapters out of a grammar school history book and tried to make a religion out of it, you could have the kids in the class room ready to jump into a volcano for George Washington. if George had been born 1700 and some odd years earlier he could have started a religion that could put Josh Christ to shame.
TruBlu87 Uploaded 06/20/2013