Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 05:27 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
There are no copies of the so-called gospels which date from any earlier than the mid-4th century. Three hundred years is a lot of time to edit the texts. Scholars cannot even agree on who Mark was. Personally, i think it's about a 50-50 shot for the historicity of the putative "Jesus." Maybe he existed, and maybe he's just the avatar for Essene teachings. It doesn't really matter, though, because after christians got involved in Roman imperial politics, whatever truth there might have been was no longer verifiable. There is no unambiguous historical evidence for the existence of your boy Jesus which is contemporary to the time in which he allegedly lived.

For someone who claims not to be a christian, you sure puke up a lot of their propaganda.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 05:45 pm
Setanta came out swinging with-
"There are no copies of the so-called gospels which date from any earlier than the mid-4th century. Three hundred years is a lot of time to edit the texts. Scholars cannot even agree on who Mark was. Personally, i think it's about a 50-50 shot for the historicity of the putative "Jesus." Maybe he existed, and maybe he's just the avatar for Essene teachings. It doesn't really matter, though, because after christians got involved in Roman imperial politics, whatever truth there might have been was no longer verifiable. There is no unambiguous historical evidence for the existence of your boy Jesus which is contemporary to the time in which he allegedly lived.
For someone who claims not to be a christian, you sure puke up a lot of their propaganda"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My dazzling series of ripostes-
1- After 400 years the original gospels must have been crumbling to dust, so they were simply copied onto new parchment like the earliest Buddhist teachings were, and the Koran..Smile

2- There are plenty of bits in the gospels that show Jesus and his chums in a bad light, for example Jesus showed weakness and begged God to get him out of being crucified, and some of the disciples chickened and ran off in fear of the romans. So if the gospels were edited as you claim,why weren't jarring bits like that airbrushed out?

3- For centuries atheists said "Nazareth never existed in Jesus's time", but recent excavations beneath the modern city reveal 2000-yr old ruins of houses,(google 'Nazareth Dig') leaving atheists red-faced. So if they were wrong when they said there was no ancient Nazareth, they could be wrong when they say there was no Jesus..Smile

4- I'm not a Christian in the accepted sense because I don't go to church and haven't been baptised (yawn), the advantage of which is I'm neutral and am free to think for myself without having to toe any Organised Religions official line..Smile
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 06:06 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Why should anyone give any more credence to the Quran or the putative teachings of Siddartha? I've got no use for any the other popular superstitions. Perhaps i ought not to have used the term edited, but rather interpolations. After all, interpolations by christians are pretty common. Adding things which weren't there previously has nothing to do with the bad character you allege for your boy Jesus and his putative disciples. Your example of his weakness facing death would only have been a dramatic touch to make him look more human. What about blasting the fig tree, even though figs weren't in season? What about destroying the livelihood of an unoffending swineherd on a whim? Christians don't seem to take notice of the example that show what a capricious, arbitrary and sometimes nasty **** their boy Jesus was. They're too wrapped up in the alleged glory.

Which atheist do you claim said that Nazareth did not exist? Have you got a citation for that, or are you just making **** up as you go along? Personally, i've never heard anyone make such a claim. I haven't said there was no Jesus (and if he was a Jew living in ancient Palestine, he wouldn't have been called "Jesus.")--i've just pointed out that there is no unambiguous historical evidence for his existence at the time he was alleged to have lived.

Whether or not you "toe" any dogmatic line, you still spout some egregious christian bullshit, and you've made that comment after attempting to suggest that the putative Jesus actually existed. You don't think these things through, do you?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 07:31 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

You ask-"What makes you think there is a Jesus or a God to start with?"

And I ask - What makes you think there isn't?

Because there's no good evidence that Jesus the man ever existed. And we know for a fact that all of the miracles attributed to him were "borrowed" from multiple religions many hundreds of years before he was even rumored to have existed.

So basically, not only is there no reliable evidence to support even the human aspect of Jesus, there is clear and obvious proof that stories of all his miracles and key elements of his divinity (resurrection) were simply borrowed from other sources. The second point is not even controversial since it's easy to follow a trail of stories in written records and to see which came first.

And that's just the Jesus part of your assumption, we haven't even started on the lack of evidence and complete irrationality of the typical Judeo-Christian vision of "God". That one's even more preposterous.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 07:34 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
The evidence for Jesus's existence is overwhelming...

Actually it's extremely weak. What do you consider "evidence" for Jesus's existence?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 07:38 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Someone has to claim thta there was a Jesus, or that there is a god, before anyone can question it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the skeptic.
If you are looking for epistemological certainty, you are largely correct. But if you are confining your arguments to the biblical account, reasonable arguments can take place.

As for me, I look at the OP as a proper place to entertain trinitarians.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 07:41 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Not exactly germane, but i think it goes well here . . .
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003203_661388903882124_1851075405_n.jpg
Hmm.

The well documented adaptation of pathogens (micro evolution) is not the same as macro evolution, though your point is noted.

Whoever created the image is the dumbass.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 07:48 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
The evidence for Jesus's existence is overwhelming...
Actually it's extremely weak. What do you consider "evidence" for Jesus's existence?
RF's apparent intention in the OP was to spark a discussion among believers.

Of course, your input is welcome; but I am befuddled by the reluctance of folks like Arella and intrepid to hop in on this. 8 years ago, we would by now have attracted many a believer. Where are they now?

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2013 07:51 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
There are no copies of the so-called gospels which date from any earlier than the mid-4th century. Three hundred years is a lot of time to edit the texts. . . .
It would be expected, don't you think, for a believer to aver that any God capable of inspiring the text would certainly have the power to preserve its integrity.

Unless, like Frank, you wish to ask "Why did Jesus never teach us about moveable type?"
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 01:34 am
I am willing to sell the silver nitrates proving that Apollonius of Tyana embraced his half-brother Jesus of Nazareth as God is my witness, on a second come second served basis. Also available wood chips and various coin dated crucially, BCE and CE.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/apollonius.html
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 03:03 am
@neologist,
Why would one not equally assert that such a deity would have preserved contemporaneous copies of the documents? Your god capable of inspiring the text was not also able to preserve original copies?

(Don't mention me in the same sentence as that scumbag Frank.)
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 03:35 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
1- Gospel-writers Matthew and John were actual disciples so their street cred is pretty kewl.


Bullshit.
Quote:
The Gospel of Matthew was composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80-90. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle as the source of much of the tradition. He drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, all of which probably derived ultimately from earlier oral gospel traditions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 05:18 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
The evidence for Jesus's existence is overwhelming...
Actually it's extremely weak. What do you consider "evidence" for Jesus's existence?
RF's apparent intention in the OP was to spark a discussion among believers.

If the original post had asked "is Hercules God?" I would have assumed that the question was intended to explore the greek myths. But when Christianity is mentioned (because it is one of the primary mythologies still alive in modern times) we need to confirm whether the person is asking for a discussion of the Christian mythology itself, or if that person is confusing the myth with reality.

I considered the possibility that the original post was intended to be a discussion from within the bounds of Christian believers and because of that almost declined to respond at all. But A2K being what it is, I decided to prod a little bit anyway just to see where it went. And now that I've seen the responses it's clear that this poster doesn't have an accurate grasp of historical reality. In order to be a good Christian, shouldn't a person have an accurate understanding of Christian history to better understand their own religion? Too many people who call themselves Christian don't even know as much about the history of their own religion as atheists do.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 05:35 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
RF's apparent intention in the OP was to spark a discussion among believers.


Not your quotation I know, but I'm not going back.

If that was RF's intention, he needs to go somewhere else, because there's precious few believers around here.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 06:51 am
Rosborne wrote:
Too many people who call themselves Christian don't even know as the history of their own religion as atheists do.


My own experience tells me it is so.

That doesn't prevent christians from pontificating. (Pun intended, check out what pontiff means).

0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 09:34 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Why would one not equally assert that such a deity would have preserved contemporaneous copies of the documents? Your god capable of inspiring the text was not also able to preserve original copies?
Point taken. If I get a chance, I'll ask him. Laughing
Setanta wrote:
(Don't mention me in the same sentence as that scumbag Frank.)
To be fair, it wasn't the same sentence. In fact, I left respectable space between the sentences.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 09:37 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
. . . Too many people who call themselves Christian don't even know as much about the history of their own religion as atheists do.
I could not have said it more succinctly.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 09:43 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Quote:
RF's apparent intention in the OP was to spark a discussion among believers.
Not your quotation I know, but I'm not going back.

If that was RF's intention, he needs to go somewhere else, because there's precious few believers around here.
My quote. But I forgive.

A few years back , there were plenty of believers. In fact, many of them still post in other threads, but avoid exposing their fragile egos to reason. When you base your beliefs on emotion alone, they wither in sunlight.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 01:33 pm
@neologist,
Indeed, such beliefs as those (and yours) only flourish in a environment of total delusion.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2013 01:33 pm
@neologist,
Izzy said- "A few years back , there were plenty of believers. In fact, many of them still post in other threads.."
-----------------------------------------------------
MWAAAH I came here hoping to slap phoney "christians" around, but if they're ducking a fight I'm very disappointed..Smile
Waddya say Rock?

"C'mon, it's true, but that don't bother me, I just wanna prove somethin',I ain't no bum, it don't matter if I lose, don't matter if Romeo opens my head.
The only thing I wanna do is go the distance, that's all.
Nobody's ever gone fifteen rounds with Romeo. If I go them fifteen rounds, an' that bell rings an' I'm still standin', I'm gonna know then I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood"...
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rocky1.png


 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is Jesus God?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/14/2022 at 06:31:54