Is God real post your thoughts!

[Saru Inc]

Dude, everyone knows Jesus exists, only naive people deny it.

[J a m e s]

Does that mean you do believe in the Big Bang, or don't?

 

 

 

Cyclic theories of the universe more often than not incorporate the big bang into them. There's nothing to say that this isn't possible as far as I can tell.

 

I was just wondering since he appears to believe in the Steady-State theory. That means he doesn't believe the Big Bang happened, right?

 

 

 

No, I believe that Big Bangs have happened.

[Zierro]

Dude, everyone knows Jesus exists, only naive people deny it.

 

 

 

He could have, but I know a lot better than to rely on just hearsay alone. Why wouldn't Jesus (the son of God!) leave behind any writings? Am I the only one who finds that silly?

[venomai]

It's all part of God's plan.

 

 

 

OR

 

 

 

Satan had his writings removed.

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Realistically... he probably just didn't write much. Lots of famous (and literate) characters through history chose not to write extensively.

[J a m e s]

Dude, everyone knows Jesus exists, only naive people deny it.

 

 

 

He could have, but I know a lot better than to rely on just hearsay alone. Why wouldn't Jesus (the son of God!) leave behind any writings? Am I the only one who finds that silly?

 

 

 

No, he obviously wanted it to be as hard as possible to believe in God.

[Sly_Wizard]

That's a stupid argument. Nice attempt to dodge that your argument was completely baseless. You obviously believe that he is real, so I refuted it on the assumption that he is. If he exists, he would have been extremely contradictory, which is even more proof against his existence. If I said that Odysseus existed, and furthermore said that he stated that "I do not exist", would you not rightly challenge that supposed statement by him as ridiculous?

 

 

 

If I stated that Odysseus was a peaceful man and never harmed anyone, then in the Iliad it mentions that he did, would you challenge that? Of course.

 

 

 

Again, moronic argument.

 

 

 

So... People are actually debating whether or not Jesus actually existed? He did. Good luck proving he didn't.

 

 

 

Is flinging the burden of proof onto people the only debating tactic you know of?

 

 

 

Funny thing, is that the people who deny Jesus existed is going to not only refute almost every reputed historian, since the consensus amongst them is that Jesus existed, but also play a game of "fill in the blanks" which is inevitably going to lead to big, giant, gaping holes. I don't fling the burden of proof anywhere, since there's nothing left to prove as it's already been proven. Why reinvent the wheel when it's already been invented?

 

 

 

The assertion that Jesus did not exist is a fringe belief. Jesus' existence is accepted by almost all historians, and the reason is that there is PLENTY of evidence. A religion that claimed him as its founder was spread all over the Roman Empire within 20 years of his death, and, while there is no contemporary evidence of him, there is much contemporary evidence of those who knew him, including his brother. In fact, those who knew him not only talked about him, they were killed for talking about him.

 

 

 

The reason "Jesus did not exist" is not a proposition that is taken seriously by historians is because the only alternative to his existence is the biggest and stupidest conspiracy theory you ever heard. "There is no contemporary writing" is the TOTAL argument of the "Jesus did not exist" crowd. There is nothing else, as all other evidence says he existed. Again, there was the church that claimed him as its founder only 20 years later and there is contemporary evidence of his friends and family. For example, Paul wrote that he went to Jerusalem to see James, the Lord's brother. So, what's YOUR theory? Was Paul lying about going to see James, or was James lying about having a brother? Because if there was no Jesus, those are your only two alternatives.

 

 

 

All in all, either you accept that:

 

 

 

1.) Peter, James and John got together and said, "I know! Let's make up a religion about a fake person who's supposed to be the Messiah and gets nailed to a cross! That'll go over big!" And, then, of course, they got NOTHING from this bizarre hoax-- Which they kept up for DECADES-- Except for poverty, beatings, exile and execution. Yet they kept it up for 50 years anyway.

 

 

 

Or:

 

 

 

2.) A guy named Jesus lived in Galilee 2000 years ago, and his followers started a religion about him after he died.

 

 

 

Gee, that's a tough call.

[Saru Inc]

That's a stupid argument. Nice attempt to dodge that your argument was completely baseless. You obviously believe that he is real, so I refuted it on the assumption that he is. If he exists, he would have been extremely contradictory, which is even more proof against his existence. If I said that Odysseus existed, and furthermore said that he stated that "I do not exist", would you not rightly challenge that supposed statement by him as ridiculous?

 

 

 

If I stated that Odysseus was a peaceful man and never harmed anyone, then in the Iliad it mentions that he did, would you challenge that? Of course.

 

 

 

Again, moronic argument.

 

 

 

So... People are actually debating whether or not Jesus actually existed? He did. Good luck proving he didn't.

 

 

 

Is flinging the burden of proof onto people the only debating tactic you know of?

 

 

 

Funny thing, is that the people who deny Jesus existed is going to not only refute almost every reputed historian, since the consensus amongst them is that Jesus existed, but also play a game of "fill in the blanks" which is inevitably going to lead to big, giant, gaping holes. I don't fling the burden of proof anywhere, since there's nothing left to prove as it's already been proven. Why reinvent the wheel when it's already been invented?

 

 

 

The assertion that Jesus did not exist is a fringe belief. Jesus' existence is accepted by almost all historians, and the reason is that there is PLENTY of evidence. A religion that claimed him as its founder was spread all over the Roman Empire within 20 years of his death, and, while there is no contemporary evidence of him, there is much contemporary evidence of those who knew him, including his brother. In fact, those who knew him not only talked about him, they were killed for talking about him.

 

 

 

The reason "Jesus did not exist" is not a proposition that is taken seriously by historians is because the only alternative to his existence is the biggest and stupidest conspiracy theory you ever heard. "There is no contemporary writing" is the TOTAL argument of the "Jesus did not exist" crowd. There is nothing else, as all other evidence says he existed. Again, there was the church that claimed him as its founder only 20 years later and there is contemporary evidence of his friends and family. For example, Paul wrote that he went to Jerusalem to see James, the Lord's brother. So, what's YOUR theory? Was Paul lying about going to see James, or was James lying about having a brother? Because if there was no Jesus, those are your only two alternatives.

 

 

 

All in all, either you accept that:

 

 

 

1.) Peter, James and John got together and said, "I know! Let's make up a religion about a fake person who's supposed to be the Messiah and gets nailed to a cross! That'll go over big!" And, then, of course, they got NOTHING from this bizarre hoax-- Which they kept up for DECADES-- Except for poverty, beatings, exile and execution. Yet they kept it up for 50 years anyway.

 

 

 

Or:

 

 

 

2.) A guy named Jesus lived in Galilee 2000 years ago, and his followers started a religion about him after he died.

 

 

 

Gee, that's a tough call.

 

 

 

Yea, 90% of historians, atheist or not KNOW Jesus existed, but the Atheists or muslims or w\e say he was just a person.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Yea, 90% of historians, atheist or not KNOW Jesus existed, but the Atheists or muslims or w\e say he was just a person.

 

OK first, Muslims believe Jesus was a special person, just not the Son of God.

 

 

 

Secondly, it is not a historian's job, even as an atheist, to deny Jesus existed. In fact, by that statement, I'm seriously wondering whether you even know what a historian's job actually is.

[Lenticular_J]

Yeah, all the Abrahamic religions acknowledge the others' major figures, just as lesser to their own.

[BlueLancer]

Yeah, all the Abrahamic religions acknowledge the others' major figures, just as lesser to their own.

 

 

 

Islam and judaism recognise the prophets, archangel, Abraham killing his son to satisfy God and anything else you can think of.

 

 

 

The main theological disagreement besides the holy trinity (which isn't entirely accepted by all christian sects either) is that Jesus is the son of God instead of another prophet, which is what christianity proposes.

 

 

 

Islamic theology states all prophets are equal in God's eyes. Jews also don't accept Jesus to be the messiah described in the Book of Isaiah.

 

 

 

The religious content, rules, laws itself of the Torah, Qur'an and Bible are very similar. Likewise, they worship the same God - Yahweh is the hebrew literal translation of God, as Allah is in the arabic language (also used by christians living in arabic countries).

[EdgedThesis]

Yeah, all the Abrahamic religions acknowledge the others' major figures, just as lesser to their own.

 

 

 

It's an Islamic sin to rank Muhammad above any other prophet--as they are all seen as equal.

[Sly_Wizard]

Yeah, all the Abrahamic religions acknowledge the others' major figures, just as lesser to their own.

 

 

 

It's an Islamic sin to rank Muhammad above any other prophet--as they are all seen as equal.

 

 

 

I'm not a Muslim, but I'm fairly sure that's untrue seeing as how Muhammad is considered "the last and greatest" of the prophets.

[EdgedThesis]

No sir. He is considered the last, yes.

 

And so muslims look to his teachings, as they are the most comprehensive.

 

 

 

But they scorn anybody who raises him above the other prophets. Muslims see all holy books as equally valid--but don't look at the current Bible and Torah because they have been tainted with human additions.

[tryto]

That's a stupid argument. Nice attempt to dodge that your argument was completely baseless. You obviously believe that he is real, so I refuted it on the assumption that he is. If he exists, he would have been extremely contradictory, which is even more proof against his existence. If I said that Odysseus existed, and furthermore said that he stated that "I do not exist", would you not rightly challenge that supposed statement by him as ridiculous?

 

 

 

If I stated that Odysseus was a peaceful man and never harmed anyone, then in the Iliad it mentions that he did, would you challenge that? Of course.

 

 

 

Again, moronic argument.

 

 

 

So... People are actually debating whether or not Jesus actually existed? He did. Good luck proving he didn't.

 

 

 

Is flinging the burden of proof onto people the only debating tactic you know of?

 

 

 

Funny thing, is that the people who deny Jesus existed is going to not only refute almost every reputed historian, since the consensus amongst them is that Jesus existed, but also play a game of "fill in the blanks" which is inevitably going to lead to big, giant, gaping holes. I don't fling the burden of proof anywhere, since there's nothing left to prove as it's already been proven. Why reinvent the wheel when it's already been invented?

 

 

 

The assertion that Jesus did not exist is a fringe belief. Jesus' existence is accepted by almost all historians, and the reason is that there is PLENTY of evidence. A religion that claimed him as its founder was spread all over the Roman Empire within 20 years of his death, and, while there is no contemporary evidence of him, there is much contemporary evidence of those who knew him, including his brother. In fact, those who knew him not only talked about him, they were killed for talking about him.

 

 

 

The reason "Jesus did not exist" is not a proposition that is taken seriously by historians is because the only alternative to his existence is the biggest and stupidest conspiracy theory you ever heard. "There is no contemporary writing" is the TOTAL argument of the "Jesus did not exist" crowd. There is nothing else, as all other evidence says he existed. Again, there was the church that claimed him as its founder only 20 years later and there is contemporary evidence of his friends and family. For example, Paul wrote that he went to Jerusalem to see James, the Lord's brother. So, what's YOUR theory? Was Paul lying about going to see James, or was James lying about having a brother? Because if there was no Jesus, those are your only two alternatives.

 

 

 

All in all, either you accept that:

 

 

 

1.) Peter, James and John got together and said, "I know! Let's make up a religion about a fake person who's supposed to be the Messiah and gets nailed to a cross! That'll go over big!" And, then, of course, they got NOTHING from this bizarre hoax-- Which they kept up for DECADES-- Except for poverty, beatings, exile and execution. Yet they kept it up for 50 years anyway.

 

 

 

Or:

 

 

 

2.) A guy named Jesus lived in Galilee 2000 years ago, and his followers started a religion about him after he died.

 

 

 

Gee, that's a tough call.

 

 

 

Yea, 90% of historians, atheist or not KNOW Jesus existed, but the Atheists or muslims or w\e say he was just a person.

 

 

 

 

 

What? They KNOW he existed? Where is there proof for this knowledge? None? Okay then. That's a bald assertion with nothing behind it.

 

 

 

People suffering for a religion proves nothing, many cults have been formed where they all committed suicide, sometimes after mutilating themselves. Does that make their religion true? Of course not.

 

 

 

10% of historians don't think he existed? That's a fair amount :P. It's also a random statistic you made up on the spot.

 

 

 

 

 

The only historical writings I've seen about James the Just is in the NT(not contemporary) and Josephus(you've seen my arguments about him). Paul never met Jesus or talked to him at all.

 

 

 

What? You want more negative proof? How about presenting some evidence FOR a mythical figure existing.

 

 

 

You want a choice? What's the possibility between these two choices:

 

 

 

1)A zombie went around preaching performing miracles and then resurrected and died for your sins

 

 

 

2)A few people lied or had voices in their heads.

[Sly_Wizard]

What? They KNOW he existed?

 

 

 

Yes. And that's the end of this story. Not that there was a story to begin with.

 

 

 

Where is there proof for this knowledge? None? Okay then. That's a bald assertion with nothing behind it.

 

 

 

I don't have time to deal with intellectual dishonesty, so A.) Re-read my post above and B.) Read this ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

 

 

 

The only historical writings I've seen about James the Just is in the NT (not contemporary).

 

 

 

What do you mean by "not contemporary"? Surely you realize that the Gospels were all written in the the 1st century AD, right?

 

 

 

...and Josephus (you've seen my arguments about him).

 

 

 

One passage in Josephus' writings are considered to be a fake by most historians. The other passage, in which it mentions James as being Jesus' brother, is not a fake.

 

 

 

Paul never met Jesus or talked to him at all.

 

 

 

And? See my blurb about Peter, James and John.

[Zierro]

Yes. And that's the end of this story. Not that there was a story to begin with.

 

 

 

The thing is, I can just as easily say that I KNOW Christianity is a bunch of bologna, end of story. Really, you gotta look on both ends of the spectrum.

[Sly_Wizard]

Yes. And that's the end of this story. Not that there was a story to begin with.

 

 

 

The thing is, I can just as easily say that I KNOW Christianity is a bunch of bologna, end of story. Really, you gotta look on both ends of the spectrum.

 

 

 

So, you basically looked at only the first response of the five I gave, proceeded to ignore the rest, and then took it out of context? Nice.

[Zierro]

You edited your post Sly. :lol: When I read it there were only two responses. Now, be the bigger man and apologize. Or just be a d-bag and leave as usually whenever you're wrong.

[Sly_Wizard]

You edited your post Sly. :lol: When I read it there were only two responses. Now, be the bigger man and apologize. Or just be a d-bag and leave as usually whenever you're wrong.

 

 

 

Ooo... Name-calling. The fool's way of letting you know he's wrong and he knows he's wrong.

 

 

 

By the way, since you want to play the "There were only two responses" card, notice what my first two responses happen to be. There's what you quoted, and then there's a link which refutes the "Jesus didn't exist claim" (Although, I'd already refuted it earlier). Oops on your part, huh? :mrgreen:

[tryto]

What? They KNOW he existed?

 

 

 

Yes. And that's the end of this story. Not that there was a story to begin with.

 

 

 

Where is there proof for this knowledge? None? Okay then. That's a bald assertion with nothing behind it.

 

 

 

I don't have time to deal with intellectual dishonesty, so A.) Re-read my post above and B.) Read this ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

 

 

 

Have I not already refuted this? Name a historical reference to Jesus in his time that is not a forgery. I mentioned several sources that refer to Jesus, and none of them are contemporary or hold water. Please, simply cite a source and prove me wrong.

 

 

 

The only historical writings I've seen about James the Just is in the NT (not contemporary).

 

 

 

What do you mean by "not contemporary"? Surely you realize that the Gospels were all written in the the 1st century AD, right?

 

 

 

Surely you read my post on how the Gospels were not written until at least 20-50 years after his death at the EARLIEST?

 

 

 

...and Josephus (you've seen my arguments about him).

 

 

 

One passage in Josephus' writings are considered to be a fake by most historians. The other passage, in which it mentions James as being Jesus' brother, is not a fake.

 

 

 

I won't bother debating this point, although it has been questioned by Schurer and others. Humphreys even suggested that it referred to a different person altogether. Would you not admit that if you found a passage in a historical text that was a clear forgery, it would not cast doubt on the rest of his works?

 

 

 

Paul never met Jesus or talked to him at all.

 

 

 

And? See my blurb about Peter, James and John.

 

 

 

And? See my refutation of the suffering for a lie chronicles.

 

Do you believe Mithra rose from the dead? What possible motive did people who spread that particular fairy tale have to gain from it?

 

 

 

"Dude, everyone knows Odysseus existed, only naive people don't." "Odysseus existed, end of story". "Odysseus existed, good luck proving he didn't"

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis

 

 

 

Oh look, there's a wikipedia article about it, it must be true.

 

 

 

Again; I don't particularly care if he existed or not; even if you prove that he did, it still doesn't prove that he resurrected from the dead, performed miracles, and died for our sins.

[Ginger_Warrior]

You edited your post Sly. :lol: When I read it there were only two responses. Now, be the bigger man and apologize. Or just be a d-bag and leave as usually whenever you're wrong.

 

 

 

Ooo... Name-calling. The fool's way of letting you know he's wrong and he knows he's wrong.

 

 

 

By the way, since you want to play the "There were only two responses" card, notice what my first two responses happen to be. There's what you quoted, and then there's a link which refutes the "Jesus didn't exist claim" (Although, I'd already refuted it earlier). Oops on your part, huh? :mrgreen:

 

Well done. Much kudos. =D>

 

 

 

Now prove he's the Son of God. You have 48 hours. Go!

[Zierro]

You edited your post Sly. :lol: When I read it there were only two responses. Now, be the bigger man and apologize. Or just be a d-bag and leave as usually whenever you're wrong.

 

 

 

Ooo... Name-calling. The fool's way of letting you know he's wrong and he knows he's wrong.

 

 

 

By the way, since you want to play the "There were only two responses" card, notice what my first two responses happen to be. There's what you quoted, and then there's a link which refutes the "Jesus didn't exist claim" (Although, I'd already refuted it earlier). Oops on your part, huh? :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Very sly of you to weasel your way out of that apology I was waiting for. That is so unlike you.

 

 

 

PS: Refute is such a strong word to use when you have Tryto "refuting" your "refutes". Judging by your credibility, I'm probably going to have to side with him.

 

 

 

Again; I don't particularly care if he existed or not; even if you prove that he did, it still doesn't prove that he resurrected from the dead, performed miracles, and died for our sins.

 

 

 

That's Sly for you though. Being right just for the sake of being right, even if that means straying away from the main argument (Jesus being the son of God).

[Sly_Wizard]

Have I not already refuted this? Name a historical reference to Jesus in his time that is not a forgery. I mentioned several sources that refer to Jesus, and none of them are contemporary or hold water. Please, simply cite a source and prove me wrong.

 

 

 

No, you didn't refute anything. All you've done is scream "They're not contemporary and they don't hold water" which is itself a fairly odd claim, to say the least. Not only is the definition you're using of contemporary incorrect, but you then apply standards to the Bible (In this case, the Gospels) that are not applied to other historical documents.

 

 

 

*Continued below*

 

 

 

Surely you read my post on how the Gospels were not written until at least 20-50 years after his death at the EARLIEST?

 

 

 

Apparently you are unfamiliar with historicity as it relates to the Gospels and Jesus. Twenty years is a relatively SHORT period of time for writings concerning Jesus to exist after his death to begin surfacing. Most writings of a central figure do not begin to appear until, at the very least, one to two centuries after his or her death. Look at these two links:

 

 

 

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

 

 

 

http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html

 

 

 

As you can clearly see, the Bible (In this case the New Testament) far surpasses any other literature of the Classical era in every respect. To try to cast doubt on the New Testament because there is a span of approximately 70 years between Jesus' death and the completion of the New Testament is incredibly dubious, considering you would have to simultaneously discredit ALL other major works of not only the Classical period, but also the Early and maybe even the High Middle Ages, as well.

 

 

 

I won't bother debating this point, although it has been questioned by Schurer and others. Would you not admit that if you found a passage in a historical text that was a clear forgery, it would not cast doubt on the rest of his works?

 

 

 

No. Mainly because it's been proven to not be a fake.

 

 

 

And? See my refutation of the suffering for a lie chronicles. Do you believe Mithra rose from the dead? What possible motive did people who spread that particular fairy tale have to gain from it?

 

 

 

This is not a refutation. This is, pure and simple, a conspiracy theory and a fringe belief among historians. Not only that, but it sounds like something picked straight out of Zeitgeist.

 

 

 

"Dude, everyone knows Odysseus existed, only naive people don't." "Odysseus existed, end of story".

 

 

 

This doesn't even warrant a serious response.

 

 

 

And I take it you didn't read the link I gave you, huh? Yes, it's to Wikipedia but it's got oodles and oodles of documented sources, which you could at the very least take time to read. But, alas, I doubt you will. You'd rather keep spouting this "Jesus didn't exist!" nonsense.

 

 

 

Well done. Much kudos. =D>

 

 

 

Now prove he's the Son of God. You have 48 hours. Go!

 

 

 

Don't need to.

 

 

 

Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God.

 

 

 

But I'm sure you knew that and all.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well done. Much kudos. =D>

 

 

 

Now prove he's the Son of God. You have 48 hours. Go!

 

 

 

Don't need to.

 

 

 

Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God.

 

You are correct.

 

 

 

Now try and answer the point rather than dismissing any need to.

[Sly_Wizard]

Very sly of you to weasel your way out of that apology I was waiting for. That is so unlike you.

 

 

 

Dunno' what you were waiting for an apology for.

 

 

 

PS: Refute is such a strong word to use when you have Tryto "refuting" your "refutes". Judging by your credibility, I'm probably going to have to side with him.

 

 

 

Oh no. Zierro isn't going to "side" with me. That would hurt, except for the little fact that I don't care.

 

 

 

That's Sly for you though. Being right just for the sake of being right, even if that means straying away from the main argument (Jesus being the son of God).

 

 

 

Hold on a second. Lemme' show you the exact quote which started this whole "Jesus didn't exist thing".

 

 

 

Found it! :

 

 

 

A logical person , thinking rationally, would conclude upon this proof that Jesus's historicity is greatly compromised, and that it is a distinct possibility that he is simply a myth. The only argument remaining is, quite simply, faith, which is inherently irrational.