Debate here if you doubt Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[jimboston]

YES, All is well with me. THANKS..!

And what do you use? At least I use facts, prove it, and do not make assumptions.

And I have travelled, outside of my state. Have you?

I do things to help others. Do you?

Ahhh….helping others by cutting & pasting Wiki and AI quotes. Got it.

[Apatheist]

YES, All is well with me. THANKS..!

And what do you use? At least I use facts, prove it, and do not make assumptions.

And I have travelled, outside of my state. Have you?

I do things to help others. Do you?

Ahhh….helping others by cutting & pasting Wiki and AI quotes. Got it.

You seem to misunderstand the AI quotes thing.
All the Google AI is doing is organising the search results. Follow the links and you'll see the paragraph that it has copied - it's exactly the same result as googling it for yourself, it's just a step shorter. It's not the same as asking AI questions that it can get wrong (and often does, particularly the freebie versions).
If you wish to refute any such quotes, do your own search and see what comes back - if it's a different answer from a reliable source, post it.
You've lost some credibility points with your assumption about me being a former banned poster (which I'm not), so you need to take some steps down from the moral high ground.

[jimboston]

YES, All is well with me. THANKS..!

And what do you use? At least I use facts, prove it, and do not make assumptions.

And I have travelled, outside of my state. Have you?

I do things to help others. Do you?

Ahhh….helping others by cutting & pasting Wiki and AI quotes. Got it.

You seem to misunderstand the AI quotes thing.
All the Google AI is doing is organising the search results. Follow the links and you'll see the paragraph that it has copied - it's exactly the same result as googling it for yourself, it's just a step shorter. It's not the same as asking AI questions that it can get wrong (and often does, particularly the freebie versions).
If you wish to refute any such quotes, do your own search and see what comes back - if it's a different answer from a reliable source, post it.
You've lost some credibility points with your assumption about me being a former banned poster (which I'm not), so you need to take some steps down from the moral high ground.

I fully understand how Google AI summary works. I find it to be generally reliable, though not 100%.

I’m not refuting any of the info or data the idiot cuts & pastes… the point is that his sole form of argument/communication is searching on AI or Wiki. He rarely adds anything of value. If I wanted to research a topic I’d just go do that on my own, I don’t need to come to a web forum to read what someone has cut&pasted from Wiki. I like to chat and discuss topics with people who form their own thoughts. Sometimes these comments can be supported by links or sources but when 95% of what someone posts is cut&paste from Google or Wiki I’ll take a hard pass.

Regarding your whole “credibility points”… I’m still not convinced you aren’t mrswdk or some former forum troll. So maybe you need the credibility points not me. My post that was in reference to was pretty obviously sarcasm… I don’t think all sarcastic comments should be followed by a ‘wink’… kinda ruins the joke IMHO.

[jusplay4fun]

YES, All is well with me. THANKS..!

And what do you use? At least I use facts, prove it, and do not make assumptions.

And I have travelled, outside of my state. Have you?

I do things to help others. Do you?

Ahhh….helping others by cutting & pasting Wiki and AI quotes. Got it.

You seem to misunderstand the AI quotes thing.
All the Google AI is doing is organising the search results. Follow the links and you'll see the paragraph that it has copied - it's exactly the same result as googling it for yourself, it's just a step shorter. It's not the same as asking AI questions that it can get wrong (and often does, particularly the freebie versions).
If you wish to refute any such quotes, do your own search and see what comes back - if it's a different answer from a reliable source, post it.
You've lost some credibility points with your assumption about me being a former banned poster (which I'm not), so you need to take some steps down from the moral high ground.

I fully understand how Google AI summary works. I find it to be generally reliable, though not 100%.

I’m not refuting any of the info or data the idiot cuts & pastes… the point is that his sole form of argument/communication is searching on AI or Wiki. He rarely adds anything of value. If I wanted to research a topic I’d just go do that on my own, I don’t need to come to a web forum to read what someone has cut&pasted from Wiki. I like to chat and discuss topics with people who form their own thoughts. Sometimes these comments can be supported by links or sources but when 95% of what someone posts is cut&paste from Google or Wiki I’ll take a hard pass.

Regarding your whole “credibility points”… I’m still not convinced you aren’t mrswdk or some former forum troll. So maybe you need the credibility points not me. My post that was in reference to was pretty obviously sarcasm… I don’t think all sarcastic comments should be followed by a ‘wink’… kinda ruins the joke IMHO.

As usual, JimB totally misses my points.

By helping others, I do not mean merely enlightening others. As I mentioned before, I help poor, needy, and/or hungry people eat with my Volunteer "work" at the local food bank/pantry and feeding people an evening meal with my church. I am only a small part of both ministries (volunteer activities); I know that I do not do either of those alone. Many other equally committed altruistic folks (including many Christians) help the less fortunate.

My point of many of my "cut and pastes" is NOT only to enlighten others, but to BOLSTER and SUPPORT my arguments and point. I am not an expert in many fields and so the evidence I cite is to offer the evaluation of others who are more knowledgeable than I. JimB uses my citation of experts as a lack of thinking on my part. THAT is simply FALSE, a LIE.

I do offer much of my own analysis and my ideas, but JimB refuses to engage in that, choosing instead to offer insults and derogatory comments. He cannot even acknowledge when we agree. He certainly has not acknowledge any mistakes he makes, to the best of my knowledge, attempting instead to call such mistakes as an ATTEMPT at humor. On most of his attempts at HUMOR or jokes, JimB is a failure.

It is obvious to me that JimB lacks credibility.

With regards to Apatheist, he has said that he is NEW and NOT the new account of an "old" former poster. JimB cannot let that idea go, cannot believe that CC may attract a new voice, since that is outside his realm of reality. I undertand LOTS, JimB. Sorry, JimB, you do suffer from Main Character Syndrome. Why can you NOT accept Apatheist at his word? Why do you insist that you are (always) correct and that he is wrong? I think this is the MAIN point of my analysis of JimBoston.

[Apatheist]

What I find most bizarre is the fact that jimb suggested that NOT knowing his sarcastic posting style was somehow evidence of being here before. I still can't wrap my head around that.
Perhaps this is where his insistence on "adding value" or "forming your own thoughts" falls down: you're taking an expert's analysis and trying to add your own, inexpertly based conclusions, which essentially involves making up stuff from your own agenda. Someone who copies from wiki, or wherever, does so because that's what supports their argument; adding one's own thoughts can in some cases undermine it. If it expresses accurately and succinctly what you want to say, why pretend it's your own original thought?

[jimboston]

What I find most bizarre is the fact that jimb suggested that NOT knowing his sarcastic posting style was somehow evidence of being here before. I still can't wrap my head around that.

I actually said the EXACT opposite of this.

Follow… I thought you’d pickup on my humor because I thought you were/are a multi.
The fact that you (claimed to) missed it was surprising.

[Apatheist]

What I find most bizarre is the fact that jimb suggested that NOT knowing his sarcastic posting style was somehow evidence of being here before. I still can't wrap my head around that.

I actually said the EXACT opposite of this.

Follow… I thought you’d pickup on my humor because I thought you were/are a multi.
The fact that you (claimed to) missed it was surprising.

Do you therefore accept it as evidence that I'm not?

[jusplay4fun]

What I find most bizarre is the fact that jimb suggested that NOT knowing his sarcastic posting style was somehow evidence of being here before. I still can't wrap my head around that.

I actually said the EXACT opposite of this.

Follow… I thought you’d pickup on my humor because I thought you were/are a multi.
The fact that you (claimed to) missed it was surprising.

Apatheist, you posted this in the wrong thread:

by Apatheist » Sat Aug 01, 2026 3:16 pm

“The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and what's more can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people's natural disposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain.”
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

[Apatheist]

The topic is similar, it works in both

[jusplay4fun]

The topic is similar, it works in both

Indeed.

BUT not the same debate.

The discussions are going in different directions.

[Apatheist]

The fact that it's not clear, is subject to subjective interpretation, and no-one knows, is for me a HUGE reason to doubt it all. If it were genuine, there should be one, incontrovertible answer. For example:
Matthew: States that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem in a house where wise men (Magi) visited the young child guided by a star [Ap: which we know to be a normal comet, if the behaviour of it was as described], followed by a flight to Egypt to escape King Herod.
Luke: States they lived in Nazareth and only traveled to Bethlehem for a census, where Jesus was born in a stable; they later presented him at the Temple in Jerusalem and returned straight to Nazareth without a flight to Egypt.

John: Suggests Jesus was crucified on the day before the Passover meal, right as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered.
Mark: Implies the crucifixion took place the day after Jesus had already eaten the Passover meal with his disciples.

The Tomb Visitors: Vary in how many women or men/angels went to or appeared at the empty tomb (e.g., one angel sitting on the stone in Matthew versus two inside in Luke/John).
They also differ on where Jesus first appeared to his disciples after rising, showing distinct regional emphases between Galilee and Jerusalem.

Feel free to read more here: https://sites.google.com/site/errorsint ... s-fictions

[jusplay4fun]

Apatheist, you quibble over trivia in this matter. The fact that there are few small differences in the Gospels are indicative of there NOT being a mass conspiracy where EVERYONE cites and quotes the SAME lines and words. Eyewitnesses offer slightly different perspectives; that is natural and normal.

[jimboston]

What I find most bizarre is the fact that jimb suggested that NOT knowing his sarcastic posting style was somehow evidence of being here before. I still can't wrap my head around that.

I actually said the EXACT opposite of this.

Follow… I thought you’d pickup on my humor because I thought you were/are a multi.
The fact that you (claimed to) missed it was surprising.

Do you therefore accept it as evidence that I'm not?

meh… yes, but weak evidence

[Apatheist]

Apatheist, you quibble over trivia in this matter. The fact that there are few small differences in the Gospels are indicative of there NOT being a mass conspiracy where EVERYONE cites and quotes the SAME lines and words. Eyewitnesses offer slightly different perspectives; that is natural and normal.

Clearly they weren't eye witnesses if people saw them in different places. I mean, this is literally supposed to be the gospel truth. If you can't rely on that, how can you believe the rest of it? Maybe they should have edited to one version.

[jimboston]

The fact that it's not clear, is subject to subjective interpretation, and no-one knows, is for me a HUGE reason to doubt it all. If it were genuine, there should be one, incontrovertible answer. For example:
Matthew: States that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem in a house where wise men (Magi) visited the young child guided by a star [Ap: which we know to be a normal comet, if the behaviour of it was as described], followed by a flight to Egypt to escape King Herod.
Luke: States they lived in Nazareth and only traveled to Bethlehem for a census, where Jesus was born in a stable; they later presented him at the Temple in Jerusalem and returned straight to Nazareth without a flight to Egypt.

John: Suggests Jesus was crucified on the day before the Passover meal, right as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered.
Mark: Implies the crucifixion took place the day after Jesus had already eaten the Passover meal with his disciples.

The Tomb Visitors: Vary in how many women or men/angels went to or appeared at the empty tomb (e.g., one angel sitting on the stone in Matthew versus two inside in Luke/John).
They also differ on where Jesus first appeared to his disciples after rising, showing distinct regional emphases between Galilee and Jerusalem.

Feel free to read more here: https://sites.google.com/site/errorsint ... s-fictions

Disagreements or inconsistencies in the writings or memories of people who lived about 2000 years ago is not a big reason why I lost my faith. People disagree with what happened last week.

I would like to believe in a “GOD”, some sort of universal higher power. I’m leaving this possibility open… but I don’t think this “GOD” would be anything like the “God” of any major religion.

Some of my major problems with “God” as described by any major religion…

*Why would an omnipotent and ever living God care about mundane bullshit?
-> I could be convinced God would care about how we treat people, or even how we “treat the Earth”. I can not be convinced “God” would let us eat beef but not want us to eat pork… or he’d be fine with beef but not on Friday. (Just one example of an arbitrary “rule”.)

*If God existed and he wanted people to follow him, then why wouldn’t he make his presence known in an obvious manner and on a consistent basis? Some will say you can “see” or “feel” his presence if you “open your heart” but that’s mumbo-jumbo. Some might say you see his work in the birth of a child or a flower growing. Maybe, but I think any God who wanted us to worship him would not be subtle about it.

*Why would an all-powerful God let people do evil shit in his name? Almost every major religion has perpetrated some evil shit, or at least condoned evil shit. You can’t convince me God would allow this to happen in his name.

*I mean while we are at it… why allow evil shit at all?

*We’ve got documented cases of religions (or sect or cults) forming, and the ridiculous / unbelievable BS they spew, yet they still manage to suck in people. Often people who are otherwise intelligent. Small cults form all the time, and the only reason they don’t get larger is because they are most often squashed by “society”… really just gov’t and other religions who don’t want competition. Seeing how religions have formed, one might question the initial formation of their own religion. The best example for this is the Mormon religion. The history of how this came to be is well documented. Like many cults they were persecuted and if someone tried to do the same thing today they’d have been squashed. They almost were squashed, but were able to avoid this fate because they fled west. By the time the US Govt. was powerful enough to squash them, things had changed and instead they’ve been slowly folded into the greater “Christian” belief system. Their Founding Myth is just ridiculous.

There are probably other ‘objections’ or thoughts I could write to describe my views against major religions… but this is a good summary.

[jimboston]

Apatheist, you quibble over trivia in this matter. The fact that there are few small differences in the Gospels are indicative of there NOT being a mass conspiracy where EVERYONE cites and quotes the SAME lines and words. Eyewitnesses offer slightly different perspectives; that is natural and normal.

Clearly they weren't eye witnesses if people saw them in different places. I mean, this is literally supposed to be the gospel truth. If you can't rely on that, how can you believe the rest of it? Maybe they should have edited to one version.

I think they were lucky to get it to 4. There were a lot of variations in early Christian beliefs. Many wars and many died fighting over the “right” way to believe in Jesus. The only reason it was “settled” was the Roman Empire / Constantine decided to use Christianity as a glue to hold the Empire together.

[HitRed]

Even in modern court cases with the help of security video each witness has a different memory and perspective.

[Apatheist]

Apatheist, you quibble over trivia in this matter. The fact that there are few small differences in the Gospels are indicative of there NOT being a mass conspiracy where EVERYONE cites and quotes the SAME lines and words. Eyewitnesses offer slightly different perspectives; that is natural and normal.

You say "trivia", I say "inconvenient truths". I don't think you're the best arbiter of what's trivial and what's a fundamental flaw.

[Apatheist]

Even in modern court cases with the help of security video each witness has a different memory and perspective.

On the minor details, perhaps, but you don't see them disagreeing over whether a baby was born in New York or Chicago if they witnessed the birth. The video would be proof, not a separate memory.
Anyway, weren't these writings dictated by an omniscient being? Wouldn't they know for sure? If they weren't dictated, why didn't they ask them for the definitive truth?
There's also supposed to be a gospel according to Mary, why didn't that make the final edit?

[HitRed]

Human are imperfect. They heard Jesus speak but crowds make a lot of noise, some Disciples were closer than others, some didn’t have parchment and a pencil till later.


This unrelated video shows different memories on the same day it was filmed.

[jusplay4fun]

Apatheist, you quibble over trivia in this matter. The fact that there are few small differences in the Gospels are indicative of there NOT being a mass conspiracy where EVERYONE cites and quotes the SAME lines and words. Eyewitnesses offer slightly different perspectives; that is natural and normal.

You say "trivia", I say "inconvenient truths". I don't think you're the best arbiter of what's trivial and what's a fundamental flaw.

I never have NOR will I CLAIM to be the BEST, but I do know something about the Gospels.

What I find as trivial differences you want to create a mountain out it, to bolster your preconceived views of Christianity. Your term "inconvenient truths" is another attempt to do the same. So be it. I refer you to the Adams quote of yours that I previously cited.

“The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and what's more can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people's natural disposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain.”
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

As for JimBoston's assertion of the "Gospel" of Mary, its authorship and its reliability are in real doubt. It is not a Gospel and there is no complete record or copy of it. The so-called "Gospel" of Mary is one of some 40 Fake (non-Canonical) Gospels. I will let JimB read and discover that for himself. His assertion of why Constantine adopted and accepted Christianity is an over-simplification of what likely occurred. Again, discover the truth for yourself, if you dare, JimB.

The same Adams quote applies to JimB, too.

[jimboston]

As for JimBoston's assertion of the "Gospel" of Mary, its authorship and its reliability are in real doubt. It is not a Gospel and there is no complete record or copy of it. The so-called "Gospel" of Mary is one of some 40 Fake (non-Canonical) Gospels. I will let JimB read and discover that for himself. His assertion of why Constantine adopted and accepted Christianity is an over-simplification of what likely occurred. Again, discover the truth for yourself, if you dare, JimB.

The same Adams quote applies to JimB, too.

JimBoston never mentioned the “Gospel of Mary”. That someone else, Apatheist likely. Please pay attention before you comment.

JimBoston’s comments about Constantine is obviously an oversimplification BY DEFINITION. I typed a summery in like 2-3 sentences… the process of Constantine’s “conversion” and the acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire occurred over a matter of decades if not centuries. I couldn’t a non-simplified version of this ‘event’ unless I wrote a whole book about it. There are already a ton of books on the subject by people more educated than I on the subject, so that’s not likely to happen. How and why it happened is clearly debated. I’ve read books about it and listens to poscasts about it… I think my “oversimplification” is pretty solid for any description of 2-3 sentences or less.

[jusplay4fun]

As for JimBoston's assertion of the "Gospel" of Mary, its authorship and its reliability are in real doubt. It is not a Gospel and there is no complete record or copy of it. The so-called "Gospel" of Mary is one of some 40 Fake (non-Canonical) Gospels. I will let JimB read and discover that for himself. His assertion of why Constantine adopted and accepted Christianity is an over-simplification of what likely occurred. Again, discover the truth for yourself, if you dare, JimB.

The same Adams quote applies to JimB, too.

JimBoston never mentioned the “Gospel of Mary”. That someone else, Apatheist likely. Please pay attention before you comment.

JimBoston’s comments about Constantine is obviously an oversimplification BY DEFINITION. I typed a summery in like 2-3 sentences… the process of Constantine’s “conversion” and the acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire occurred over a matter of decades if not centuries. I couldn’t a non-simplified version of this ‘event’ unless I wrote a whole book about it. There are already a ton of books on the subject by people more educated than I on the subject, so that’s not likely to happen. How and why it happened is clearly debated. I’ve read books about it and listens to poscasts about it… I think my “oversimplification” is pretty solid for any description of 2-3 sentences or less.

Yes, Gospel of Mary comment should have been in response to Apatheist; my mistake. However, what I said about the Gospel of Mary still stands; no refutation there.

JimB's oversimplification of Constantine’s conversion is that, TOO simple and LEAVE out much of the truth and thus, at best, half correct, which means it is half WRONG. You missed the point, AGAIN, JimB. For someone who claims to be so knowledge on this topic, your summary omits LOTS and is misleading, at best. It is NOT SOLID, not even "pretty solid ." More Simply, it is NOT TRUE.

Also, you do not need a book to express the truth. Look into the conversion of Constantine. One can summarize it in 3-4 sentences and does NOT require a BOOK. JimB again misses another point. You totally ignore that Constantine DID (likely) convert to Christianity for also PERSONAL Reasons.

[jimboston]

As for JimBoston's assertion of the "Gospel" of Mary, its authorship and its reliability are in real doubt. It is not a Gospel and there is no complete record or copy of it. The so-called "Gospel" of Mary is one of some 40 Fake (non-Canonical) Gospels. I will let JimB read and discover that for himself. His assertion of why Constantine adopted and accepted Christianity is an over-simplification of what likely occurred. Again, discover the truth for yourself, if you dare, JimB.

The same Adams quote applies to JimB, too.

JimBoston never mentioned the “Gospel of Mary”. That someone else, Apatheist likely. Please pay attention before you comment.

JimBoston’s comments about Constantine is obviously an oversimplification BY DEFINITION. I typed a summery in like 2-3 sentences… the process of Constantine’s “conversion” and the acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire occurred over a matter of decades if not centuries. I couldn’t a non-simplified version of this ‘event’ unless I wrote a whole book about it. There are already a ton of books on the subject by people more educated than I on the subject, so that’s not likely to happen. How and why it happened is clearly debated. I’ve read books about it and listens to poscasts about it… I think my “oversimplification” is pretty solid for any description of 2-3 sentences or less.

Yes, Gospel of Mary comment should have been in response to Apatheist; my mistake. However, what I said about the Gospel of Mary still stands; no refutation there.

JimB's oversimplification of Constantine’s conversion is that, TOO simple and LEAVE out much of the truth and thus, at best, half correct, which means it is half WRONG. You missed the point, AGAIN, JimB. For someone who claims to be so knowledge on this topic, your summary omits LOTS and is misleading, at best. It is NOT SOLID, not even "pretty solid ." More Simply, it is NOT TRUE.

Also, you do not need a book to express the truth. Look into the conversion of Constantine. One can summarize it in 3-4 sentences and does NOT require a BOOK. JimB again misses another point. You totally ignore that Constantine DID (likely) convert to Christianity for also PERSONAL Reasons.

Like I said, the how and why of Constantine’s conversion is debated. There are some facts that support my summary.

I’m glad however you seem to have great insight in the heart of this Roman Emperor. LOL
So great that you can state with confidence as a “FACT” that my statements were just WRONG. LOL

[jusplay4fun]

As for JimBoston's assertion of the "Gospel" of Mary, its authorship and its reliability are in real doubt. It is not a Gospel and there is no complete record or copy of it. The so-called "Gospel" of Mary is one of some 40 Fake (non-Canonical) Gospels. I will let JimB read and discover that for himself. His assertion of why Constantine adopted and accepted Christianity is an over-simplification of what likely occurred. Again, discover the truth for yourself, if you dare, JimB.

The same Adams quote applies to JimB, too.

JimBoston never mentioned the “Gospel of Mary”. That someone else, Apatheist likely. Please pay attention before you comment.

JimBoston’s comments about Constantine is obviously an oversimplification BY DEFINITION. I typed a summery in like 2-3 sentences… the process of Constantine’s “conversion” and the acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire occurred over a matter of decades if not centuries. I couldn’t a non-simplified version of this ‘event’ unless I wrote a whole book about it. There are already a ton of books on the subject by people more educated than I on the subject, so that’s not likely to happen. How and why it happened is clearly debated. I’ve read books about it and listens to poscasts about it… I think my “oversimplification” is pretty solid for any description of 2-3 sentences or less.

Note what JimB posted here.

Is this his summery [sic]?