35
   

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Forums: Religion, History, Theology, Jesus, Religious
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 04:38 am
@izzythepush,
And you know that it's his remains in there because?
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 04:56 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
well, not Jesus CHRIST mind you, since 'Christ' means annointed aka messiah. He's just Jesus for me.

Sorry, I understand...I called him Christ because he is Christ to me...

Quote:
Savior from what exactly?

That is my point to you personally mate...But would you honestly like me to explain? If I do do that...that would be me trying to convince you why I would say Jesus is a savior, and that would entail others asking me to provide proof for what I claim...I just want to make sure...are you sure you would like me to explain this to you? You seem like you are in a nice spot right now...

Blessed are the simple minded...and to whom more is given...more is expected or required...
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:03 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
If I do do that...that would be me trying to convince you why I would say Jesus is a savior, and that would entail others asking me to provide proof for what I claim...I just want to make sure...are you sure you would like me to explain this to you? You seem like you are in a nice spot right now...


I'm just trying to understand from what exactly we need to be saved, in your opinion. Sin?

No big deal if you don't feel like answering.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:05 am
@Olivier5,
Spade wrote:
You have no need to be convinced he was a savior, or provided proof he was not...


This is typical of Spade, and of many religionists. No one has to prove a negative, no one has to prove the putative Jesus was or was not anything. Only those making a claim have a burden of proof.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:14 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I'm just trying to understand from what exactly we need to be saved, in your opinion. Sin?

I am just saying that if I explain this to you...then I believe you may be held to what you personally believe or reject...about "Jesus"...or "Jesus Christ"

Quote:
No big deal if you don't feel like answering.

It is all freely up to you mate...not me...If you feel comfortable, then I say go with it...If you feel fearful in some way...I would not do it...

That is as honest, and upfront as I can be...

Once hearing this whatever you wish for me to do is what I will do...and I won't be offended mate...
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:23 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Don't you worry about me. I can stand more heat than that. And I am not interested in an endless ping-pong battle either.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:25 am
@Setanta,
LoL...I disagree...anyone who requires proof...It is on them to go find adequate proof either for or against any such claim made...No one else knows what personally constitutes proof for anyone else...that would either convince them...or would be deemed to be inadequate and does not stand up to scrutiny...

You have told me the other day that you neither believe nor reject...Fine...When I made my post to Oliver...(You did not have to read it, or you could have...you did not have to post, or could have)...and you do not have to believe me...you can reject what I have said...or you can do neither...as I have explained how above in parenthesis...

But if you freely feel compelled to voice your "opinion" which I am not giving any indication of what I think you should or should not do...as in neither...that burden is no longer on me...

And I am not going to try to convince anyone of my beliefs unless they would like to hear my beliefs...and I am not going to try to prove anything to anyone...unless one can explain why they believe I should...Since I can not provide proof for a rejection...because there is nothing to provide proof for...It is that simple...
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:28 am
@Olivier5,
That is cool mate...I am happy to hear you say this...I really am...I have to go for a bit...but I will be back..I promise...First thing God says about a "savior" is obedience...
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:31 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
That is cool mate...I am happy to hear you say this...I really am...I have to go for a bit...but I will be back...I promise...First thing God says about a "savior" is obedience...


No rush. I'm just being curious.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:34 am
@Olivier5,
Well you can't say with 100% certainty that it is his grave, but there is considerably more written evidence that is of the time regarding than there is for Jesus.

The main source on Muhammad's life are Muslim sources written in Arabic, which include the Qur'an and accounts of Muhammad's life written down by later Muslims, based on oral traditions. These sources are known as sīra and hadith.

Quote:
There are also non-Muslim sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by the Jewish and Christian communities. These non-Muslim written sources go back to about 636 AD and many of the interesting ones date to within some decades later. One, attributed to a 7th-century Armenian scholar Sebeos, states that Muhammad was a merchant and that his preaching revolved around the figure of Abraham. There are also confirmations of Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina in them. However, they also contain some essential differences with regard to Muslim sources and in particular about chronology and about Muhammad's attitude towards the Jews and Palestine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:43 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
No rush. I'm just being curious.

I think that this is exceedingly great to hear you say this...

Patience is a virtue...
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:52 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Disagree to your heart's content, i'm used to seeing you display a lack of logical integrity. If you claim that there was a "Jesus," and that he was a "savior," no one is obliged to disprove that, you are obliged to prove it, if you expect to be taken seriously. Anyone who doesn't believe it is under no obligation to disprove it, unless and until you offer some substantive reason to support the belief. At that time, if they want to dispute it, they can either attempt to disprove it, or take issue with your putative "proofs."
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:55 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
You really need to dump this believe or reject bullshit--you continue to attempt to bully people into accepting your terms of discussion. I've got no use for anyone's idiotic dualistic rhetoric. In life, in my experience, there are always more than two choices.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 05:59 am
@izzythepush,
If you consider Muslim sources are evidence of the historicity of Mohamad, then you should consider the NT as evidence of the historicity of Jesus, right?

I read the wiki article you linked to (thanks) and it says there are 3 non-Muslim (rather short, sometimes hard to read) mentions of Mo, from his time or shortly after his time. That does constitute evidence, but it's not a whole lot more than for Jesus.

Of course, denying the historicity of Mohammad is less fun than denying Jesus', at least for ex-christians. Ex-muslims might get a better kick out of it...
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 06:05 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Disagree to your heart's content, i'm used to seeing you display a lack of logical integrity. If you claim that there was a "Jesus," and that he was a "savior," no one is obliged to disprove that, you are obliged to prove it, if you expect to be taken seriously. Anyone who doesn't believe it is under no obligation to disprove it, unless and until you offer some substantive reason to support the belief. At that time, if they want to dispute it, they can either attempt to disprove it, or take issue with your putative "proofs."

Do you think that all of the small sample size that is here would agree with this? Let alone the World?

I am not obligated to do what you would like me to do neither...
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 06:05 am
@Olivier5,
The difference between the NT and Moslem sources about Mohammed is time. The Moslem sources other than the Koran are far closer time wise to Mohammed than the NT is to Jesus. The Gospel according to Mark was written about 7o AD, and that's the earliest.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 06:08 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
You really need to dump this believe or reject bullshit--you continue to attempt to bully people into accepting your terms of discussion. I've got no use for anyone's idiotic dualistic rhetoric. In life, in my experience, there are always more than two choices.

Does one of them include walking away from this so called bullying? How could it be bullying, if one willingly chooses to engage, though they claim they have "no time" for it...?

That is not my fault, if you truly feel I am a bully...and engage me...because I sure as Hell do not go searching for you...
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 06:16 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
Patience is a virtue...


So is straightforwardness.

You could have answered my question straightforwardly a long time ago... But you didn't. Why?

As an aside, the injunction to be straightforward represents one of these parallels between the NT and the Talmud that I was talking about sooner:

NT:
Matthew 5:37 - But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
James 5.12 - let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

Talmud:
Bava Batra 49b - A righteous yes is a Yes; a righteous no is No.




izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 06:16 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
I didn't realise you were bullying Setanta, that might explain why he's such a shy retiring violet, and not remotely opinionated or domineering.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 06:21 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
Says you...Of course...and only you in that exact way...no universal evidence at all...


Once more LOL it is not my duty/obligation to show evidences it is your to show evidences of a supernatural god or gods and people who have connections with such beings not mine.

Hell you might started with proving one supernatural event in relationship to such gods or in connection to anything else for that matter.

No one need to give your or anyone else fantasies any credit until those fantasies can be shown to be something other then fantasies.

Messengers of gods indeed....complete nonsense on it face unless you care to give solid proof of such messengers existing and or the gods who give them the messages for that matter.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Did Jesus Actually Exist?
  3. » Page 23
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 08:49:19
▲ ▼