Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

[Tenacious D]

How you got any of that out of what I asked, tells me a lot about the person on the other side of the keyboard.

I don't use a keyboard. Truth simply streams from my cortex into electronic narrative.

I have no proof to offer as to the accuracy of this statement, other than this really old book.

Many people simply believe it. You should, too. Or else, it says bad things man. Really bad things.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I don't use a keyboard. Truth simply streams from my cortex into electronic narrative.

I have no proof to offer as to the accuracy of this statement, other than this really old book.

Many people simply believe it. You should, too. Or else, it says bad things man. Really bad things.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I see that Pick of Destiny thing is working out for you then.

 

[therealUT]

OK-I get it. I have no problem with you not believing in Jesus as divine. But do you honestly not belive that Jesus lived and is accepted by many as an historical figure? Seriously? You think he never was here?

I imagine that he lived; however, I have issues with some of the Gospel narratives of his life and their contradictions with each other and with historical fact.

Herod was exiled and replaced by Quirinius prior to the census. The census is said to have taken place in 6 CE. Jesus, according to the historians who say he was a historical figure, was born in 5 or 4 BCE. That would mean the Gospel writers are muddling a decade of history, simply to find an excuse to put Jesus in Bethlehem and later in Egypt.

I also have a problem with the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. According to the synoptic Gospels, John and Jesus knew each other from youth; they were cousins. According to the Gospel of John, John first encounters Jesus when he baptizes him. That is a fundamental difference.

Historians who declare that Jesus was a real person, a historical figure, base much of their statements on the New Testament accounts. Yet, not all of these accounts can be credible as historical documents, since they boast of competing claims.

Being that Jesus, regardless of his existence, is not a divine figure to me, and that his teachings can be found in many other places (look in Plato's Republic for the origin of the "truth, the light, and the way"), then it really does not so much concern me to decide one way or the other.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I imagine that he lived; however, I have issues with some of the Gospel narratives of his life and their contradictions with each other and with historical fact.

Herod was exiled and replaced by Quirinius prior to the census. The census is said to have taken place in 6 CE. Jesus, according to the historians who say he was a historical figure, was born in 5 or 4 BCE. That would mean the Gospel writers are muddling a decade of history, simply to find an excuse to put Jesus in Bethlehem and later in Egypt.

I also have a problem with the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. According to the synoptic Gospels, John and Jesus knew each other from youth; they were cousins. According to the Gospel of John, John first encounters Jesus when he baptizes him. That is a fundamental difference.

Historians who declare that Jesus was a real person, a historical figure, base much of their statements on the New Testament accounts. Yet, not all of these accounts can be credible as historical documents, since they boast of competing claims.

Being that Jesus, regardless of his existence, is not a divine figure to me, and that his teachings can be found in many other places (look in Plato's Republic for the origin of the "truth, the light, and the way"), then it really does not so much concern me to decide one way or the other.

Their mothers were cousins, but that doesn't mean that John and Jesus were in frequent contact. I got cousins I met when I was a young dude, but don't remember half of them now. I don't see it as an issue myself.

 

[therealUT]

Their mothers were cousins, but that doesn't mean that John and Jesus were in frequent contact. I got cousins I met when I was a young dude, but don't remember half of them now. I don't see it as an issue myself.

Have you ever visited a third-world, developing nation? Cousins know each other, intimately, even if they live a couple days journey from each other.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Have you ever visited a third-world, developing nation? Cousins know each other, intimately, even if they live a couple days journey from each other.

And you know this how from 2,000 years ago?? Again, why does this even matter, other than the fact it just brings some type of argument to the table?? Believing in the Bible, and the people and beliefs in it is about faith. If you don't believe, so be it, but don't sit here and try to pick apart something you don't want to be a part of. There are plenty of Christians that do the same thing, and they completely miss out on the joy that God and Christ bring to you on a daily basis. At least this is the case for me.

 

[CSVol]

I imagine that he lived; however, I have issues with some of the Gospel narratives of his life and their contradictions with each other and with historical fact.

Herod was exiled and replaced by Quirinius prior to the census. The census is said to have taken place in 6 CE. Jesus, according to the historians who say he was a historical figure, was born in 5 or 4 BCE. That would mean the Gospel writers are muddling a decade of history, simply to find an excuse to put Jesus in Bethlehem and later in Egypt.

I also have a problem with the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. According to the synoptic Gospels, John and Jesus knew each other from youth; they were cousins. According to the Gospel of John, John first encounters Jesus when he baptizes him. That is a fundamental difference.

Historians who declare that Jesus was a real person, a historical figure, base much of their statements on the New Testament accounts. Yet, not all of these accounts can be credible as historical documents, since they boast of competing claims.

Being that Jesus, regardless of his existence, is not a divine figure to me, and that his teachings can be found in many other places (look in Plato's Republic for the origin of the "truth, the light, and the way"), then it really does not so much concern me to decide one way or the other.

I only asked because you implied there was a chance he never existed. I have stated on this board that there can and have been manipulations by followers of the NT as most if not all were written decades if not centuries after Jesus' death. I am an avid reader of history and have read Plato's Republic and Dialogues. Rational and reasonable critics and advocates believe much of Jesus' belief system includes the teachings of Socrates. I can't quote Bible references b/c I'm ashamed to admit I haven't read the whole book, but I'm not sure Jesus himself didn't admit as much.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Most do not agree that he was resurrected and then appeared to 500 people.

And yet there are documented stories of many who witnessed seeing Jesus after the resurrection. So what has always been of interest to me is not simply the stories of those who saw them... but the lack of stories claiming it was all just a hoax! Think about it. There were many, both Jews and Romans alike, who were extremely concerned with the claims Jesus was making while He was alive... that He was the Son of God. And yet, after His death and resurrection, it appears there was very little written offering any type of explanation or denial that he rose from His grave.

Seems to me that if it didn't really happen that there would be far more stories disclaiming the resurrection than there are claiming it happened. What about the Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb? Why was His body not found? What about the crowd of people who claim to have seen Him? Place yourself in the historical moment of what must have been happening during this event and then ask yourself... where are the stories/claims/proof that this didn't happen? I know there are many who may not want to believe, but you have to wonder why the stories continued without denial, why Christianity continued to expand, and why apostles... who were too afraid to admit even knowing Him after his crucifixion, now are willing to be put to death to claim He is God. What could have changed to have suddenly made them so bold?

 

[Tenacious D]

And you know this how from 2,000 years ago?? Again, why does this even matter, other than the fact it just brings some type of argument to the table?? Believing in the Bible, and the people and beliefs in it is about faith. If you don't believe, so be it, but don't sit here and try to pick apart something you don't want to be a part of. There are plenty of Christians that do the same thing, and they completely miss out on the joy that God and Christ bring to you on a daily basis. At least this is the case for me.

Any god who fears question is no God. Perhaps you should read about a place called Gethsemane, and adjust your aim.

Besides, who are you to bring the debate to a close, again?

Why can't he pick it apart if he wants? It seems that his right to say it is not mutually exclusive of yours to debate - or even ignore - it, either in whole or in part.

That you wish to stifle debate is an infinitely more damning indictment of your own faith than any argument that he is likely to produce.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

And yet there are documented stories of many who witnessed seeing Jesus after the resurrection. So what has always been of interest to me is not simply the stories of those who saw them... but the lack of stories claiming it was all just a hoax! Think about it. There were many, both Jews and Romans alike, who were extremely concerned with the claims Jesus was making while He was alive... that He was the Son of God. And yet, after His death and resurrection, it appears there was very little written offering any type of explanation or denial that he rose from His grave.

Seems to me that if it didn't really happen that there would jbe far more stories disclaiming the resurrection than there are claiming it happened. What about the Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb? Why was His body not found? What about the crowd of people who claim to have seen Him? Place yourself in the historical moment of what must have been happening during this event and then ask yourself... where are the stories/claims/proof that this didn't happen? I know there are many who may not want to believe, but you have to wonder why the stories continued without denial, why Christianity continued to expand, and why apostles... who were too afraid to admit even knowing Him after his crucifixion, now are willing to be put to death to claim He is God. What could have changed to have suddenly made them so bold?

Many claimed to have seen Elvis after his death, too. And Michael Jackson.

That, in and of itself is no certain proof.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

And yet there are documented stories of many who witnessed seeing Jesus after the resurrection.

Can you cite these documented stories please?

Next, you are asking me to logically prove a negative. This cannot be done in any situation without empirical proof; empirical proof relies on positives, though.

 

[gsvol]

Gs, the Catholic Church was allied with the Nazis, too. Hitler was a Christian, after all.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

How can one kid be so very wrong so very often??

Hitler was never considered a Christian
by anyone, especially himself. (he did
belong to some homosexual groups.)

As a matter of fact he used some very
derogatory terms to describe Christianity.
I posted several of his quotes in the naacp
thread.

However he praised islam extensively.

All the fascist leaders were in league
with various moslem forces, Moussolini
took the title; 'defender of islam.'

The Pope never raised any troops for the
nazis, the islamic mufti of Jerusalem did
raise three divisions of SS troops that
served the nazis.

They were so avidly brutal and sadistic
that some of Hitler's generals complained
to him but he told them that was a good
thing and not to bring it up again.

The following is an example:


"During our journey toward the hill
of Javor, near Srebrenica and Ozren, all
the Serbian villages which we came across
were wholly massacred. In the villages
between Vlasenica and Kladanj we discovered
children who had been impaled upon stakes,
their small limbs still distorted by pain,
resembling insects stuck through by pins."

The above quote is from:
"Assassins au nom de Dieu"
Author: Herve Lauriere
Paris, 1951, page 58

I believe in a First Cause/Creator/God. I do not believe in any of the mythology from any of the "revealed" religions.

Ever read the Tao??

Was this a response to the question of whether or not you believe in the Trinity?

Earlier you referred to me as the Artful Dodger; yet, you seem to be the one who is being evasive on such a simple yes or no question here.

I said yes I do believe in the Trinity.

I do not believe in the moslem view of
the Trinity.

For one thing they relegate Jesus to the
status of a prophet rather than being the
Son of God, the Messiah that was prophesized
of in the Old Testament.

Of course Churchill was a militant.

I do not; however, I am not going to label him as anything other than militant. Easily one of the most hawkish statesmen of the past two hundred years.

He was no pacifist appeaser like Champerlain,
I'll give you that.

You would agree though that the fascist and
moslem leaders were more militant, would you
not?

As should over 200,000 troops of the British Empire who died in the Dardanelles and on the shores of Gallipoli due to because Churchill's hawkish hubris kept him from declaring the campaign lost in the early goings. Now that you bring up Churchill's beliefs about Islam, one has to wonder if that also colored his thinking at that time.

His political carreer almost ended early on.

One should always be aware as much as possible
about one's enemies, especially in time of war.

I seriously didn't know at first, but another poster texted me the answer after reading gsvol's clues. The carrots and Willy Wonka-crazy stare have always intrigued me.

Who tipped you off??

Or the 2nd largest population of Jews in the world, that used to live in Alexandria?

What happened to the Jews of Alexandria??

 

[CSVol]

Do you purposely write your posts to look like poems?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Many claimed to have seen Elvis after his death, too. And Michael Jackson.

That, in and of itself is no certain proof.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

haha... weak sauce. Funny, but still weak sauce.

Besides, I didn't ask for proof that He was seen by others... there's plenty of that. I asked about the proof/stories/documents that it was all a hoax.

 

[therealUT]

I said yes I do believe in the Trinity.

I do not believe in the moslem view of
the Trinity.

Therefore, if, according to your belief, Jesus is God, then wouldn't you have to attribute all the Old Testament murders, judicial stonings, and genocides to Jesus?

"Totally begotten from the Father, light from light, true God from true God..."

 

[therealUT]

haha... weak sauce. Funny, but still weak sauce.

Besides, I didn't ask for proof that He was seen by others... there's plenty of that. I asked about the proof/stories/documents that it was all a hoax.

I cannot imagine that either the Romans or the Jews were concerned with making sure to label the Resurrection a hoax. In the years immediately following Jesus' supposed death and resurrection, the Jews found themselves battling for their lives against other Jews withing the city of Jerusalem and with the Romans outside the city; the Romans in the area were busy trying to figure out how to storm the rebel stronghold of Masada.

As hard as it is to fathom, each of these sections of the population had much more important tasks to deal with than proving "Christians" wrong. It was much more expedient to simply round them up as rebels and execute them.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Can you cite these documented stories please?

Next, you are asking me to logically prove a negative. This cannot be done in any situation without empirical proof; empirical proof relies on positives, though.

(1) The stories of the resurrection of Jesus are readily available in the Bible as well as other historical documentation.

(2) I don't believe I asked you, or anyone, to logically prove anything. I simply asked where are the stories claiming it was a hoax.

 

[therealUT]

Can you cite these documented stories please?

Next, you are asking me to logically prove a negative. This cannot be done in any situation without empirical proof; empirical proof relies on positives, though.

(1) The stories of the resurrection of Jesus are readily available in the Bible as well as other historical documentation.

The story of 500 people seeing Jesus after his resurrection is noted by only Saul of Tarsus; a person whose only encounter with Jesus was when he was delirious after a horse-riding accident.

The only "credible" non-Biblical account of the resurrection is from Josephus; he wasn't born until 37 CE, though. So, he did not witness this event, either.

 

[milohimself]

Supposing that they are, and will - shouldn't he be unwavering in its opposition?

Perhaps you'd prefer Eric's church. Apparently, they're not only "top notch" but avoid even the most basic of Biblical principles.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

They can run their church how they want. I've been through plenty of sermons about "You'll go to hell if you do this/that" some including homosexuality. I have no issue with those, I consider myself of Christian faith. I won't presume to tell others how they should run their congregation.

So, what's the numerical cut-off that delineates when stereotypical beliefs are acceptable, or not?

And exactly who set that standard?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I believe that people are generally good. I believe that with few exceptions, if you get a large enough group of people, the majority of them will be pleasant individuals.

Milo was too narrow-minded and intolerably encumbered to hear a Baptist minister's position on homosexuality and the fate of mankind's very existence.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Oh, assuming things. Fun game, let's play.

You don't place enough importance on your life to be doing something aside from putting statements in other people's mouth on the internet trying to goad them into an argument.

Apparently you're intelligent enough to earn an income that supports you owning a computer and an internet connection... Or you happen to live near a city bus line that will take you to the library.

Damn you reason! Damn you to he*l - with the **** (allegedly, from the brief portion which Milo overheard and relayed to me, a few posts ago)!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

In fact, that was directly aimed at you! I wasn't even adding anything to the conversation in general, just thinking about how much I can't STAND to listen to pastors talk bad about the gay community. I came on here to talk about it on the internet hoping that a person with disabilities would turn a simple comment I made about a single pastor whom I didn't have taste for into a multi-post diatribe about how wrong my views on religion are and how they offend all of my PC sensibilities.

Thanks, ten. Pure class, you.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I cannot imagine that either the Romans or the Jews were concerned with making sure to label the Resurrection a hoax. In the years immediately following Jesus' supposed death and resurrection, the Jews found themselves battling for their lives against other Jews withing the city of Jerusalem and with the Romans outside the city; the Romans in the area were busy trying to figure out how to storm the rebel stronghold of Masada.

As hard as it is to fathom, each of these sections of the population had much more important tasks to deal with than proving "Christians" wrong. It was much more expedient to simply round them up as rebels and execute them.

This would be a biased view of history imo, with a complete disregard of the importance religion (for good or bad) played during that era. Further, I offer you a story of people who traveled with Jesus but yet were afraid to admit even knowing him after his death... and then days/weeks after his resurrection they are willing to die to claim He is the risen Savior.

You counter with "in the years following" and blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but it just seems you're not really wanting to consider what was occurring during the resurrection period. Jesus, fulfilling a prophecy that was referenced numerous times in the Old Testament, would have been quite significant and history documents such. As far as Christianity being unimportant I guess you're right... it would just mean the end of the Pharisees rule as it existed at that time... but why would they care.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

They can run their church how they want. I've been through plenty of sermons about "You'll go to hell if you do this/that" some including homosexuality. I have no issue with those, I consider myself of Christian faith. I won't presume to tell others how they should run their congregation.


I believe that people are generally good. I believe that with few exceptions, if you get a large enough group of people, the majority of them will be pleasant individuals.


Oh, assuming things. Fun game, let's play.

You don't place enough importance on your life to be doing something aside from putting statements in other people's mouth on the internet trying to goad them into an argument.

Apparently you're intelligent enough to earn an income that supports you owning a computer and an internet connection... Or you happen to live near a city bus line that will take you to the library.


In fact, that was directly aimed at you! I wasn't even adding anything to the conversation in general, just thinking about how much I can't STAND to listen to pastors talk bad about the gay community. I came on here to talk about it on the internet hoping that a person with disabilities would turn a simple comment I made about a single pastor whom I didn't have taste for into a multi-post diatribe about how wrong my views on religion are and how they offend all of my PC sensibilities.

Thanks, ten. Pure class, you.

Epic win milo. :lol:

 

[therealUT]

This would be a biased view of history imo, with a complete disregard of the importance religion (for good or bad) played during that era. Further, I offer you a story of people who traveled with Jesus but yet were afraid to admit even knowing him after his death... and then days/weeks after his resurrection they are willing to die to claim He is the risen Savior.

Makes for a suspenseful and compelling narrative, right? Almost has a high-brow literature aspect to it. Are their primary documents of these feelings right after the crucifixion? Did these disciples write letters home telling their loved ones that they were afraid for their safety? Did the authors of the Gospels reference these letters? Or, is it a nice, highly dramatic story?

Have you read the Iliad? The Odyssey? The Aeneid? They are works of fiction with suspenseful plots and story lines. How about Crime and Punishment? Great suspense and drama there, too.

You counter with "in the years following" and blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but it just seems you're not really wanting to consider what was occurring during the resurrection period. Jesus, fulfilling a prophecy that was referenced numerous times in the Old Testament, would have been quite significant and history documents such. As far as Christianity being unimportant I guess you're right... it would just mean the end of the Pharisees rule as it existed at that time... but why would they care.

So, writers who were writing to prove the divinity of Jesus ensured that they mentioned prophecies that needed to be fulfilled. Too bad history proves some of these writers to be liars: Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem in 5 BCE for a census that did not take place until 6 CE...

 

[IPorange]

This would be a biased view of history imo, with a complete disregard of the importance religion (for good or bad) played during that era. Further, I offer you a story of people who traveled with Jesus but yet were afraid to admit even knowing him after his death... and then days/weeks after his resurrection they are willing to die to claim He is the risen Savior.

You counter with "in the years following" and blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but it just seems you're not really wanting to consider what was occurring during the resurrection period. Jesus, fulfilling a prophecy that was referenced numerous times in the Old Testament, would have been quite significant and history documents such. As far as Christianity being unimportant I guess you're right... it would just mean the end of the Pharisees rule as it existed at that time... but why would they care.

So what other sources besides the gospels, which contradict, have the above info? That's what was asked.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

Epic win milo. :lol:

How so? Are you just hiding behind a skirt?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

I don't understand why anybody thinks there would be any sort of detailed historical account of anybody from 2,000 years ago aside from government, nobility and maybe a few who gained contemporary notoriety at the time.