Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What do you know? How do you know it?

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 12:03:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

Divine revelation, duh.

He told me so. And He doesn't lie. Cause He told me so.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 2:50:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

All people 'know' about Jesus what is written in the gospels. As most of the tales about the guy are fanciful in the extreme, they have to be treated with a large pinch of salt!
Classified
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 3:34:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

The threads about Jesus are scattered around the religion forum. So I won't bother explaining it yet...

I claim what I claim through faith and tribulations. I have experienced a lot of obstacles and I got through them all with confidence from the Lord.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 3:39:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

Jesus was my grandmother's accountant. She told me so when I saw his number hanging on her fridge and asked her if it was a "direct line". She said yes. He even has a CPA. I used him to do my income taxes one year and got the biggest return ever. He was a miracle worker. True story. Seriously.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 4:19:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

Very much, and yet very little. The magic hamster told me.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 4:38:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

the figure that still leave mystery. Some people concede him as a God, some as son of god, prophet, and great teacher. Non religious people even think his existence is unproven.
everyone belong to their own argument.
Jehovah Witnesses think he was a son of god instead of god himself. and soon.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 10:30:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know many Mexicans who are named Jesus. Jesus is a Spanish name that English speaking people use for their false deity.

God's first saint out of thousands of saints who spoke for Him was the first saint to learn who we are within His mind. If you want to call the first saint, Jesus, it's okay with me but I know for a fact that His name was of a different language other than Spanish or English.

I'm the last saint God has used for the purpose to testify to His knowledge. Jesus was the first saint to speak from the same knowledge.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 1:50:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus?

I know about Jesus that what the Bible tells about Jesus.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 2:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 1:50:17 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus?

I know about Jesus that what the Bible tells about Jesus.

So everything you think you know about Jesus, is based on writings selected by men who had no knowledge of what was and wasn't true, living over 300-years later, which were written by anonymous men who never knew Jesus, who record contradicting accounts, and based their stories on OT readings and popular oral tales.

And you believe these accounts, which are demonstrably fictional, despite the fact that even many Christians of the first and second century, believed in a Jesus who existed only in an ethereal realm, and others who believed he was only a prophet of God.

This is why you "believe" in Jesus, yet "know" nothing about him.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 3:09:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 2:51:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
So everything you think you know about Jesus, is based on writings selected by men who had no knowledge of what was and wasn't true,

How do you know what they know? Why I should believe you? You live over thousand years after them and you claim that you know what they "really" knew. It would be more convincing, if you wouldn"t require so much faith in you.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men, and which documents were gathered in the fourth century by Jerome and incorporated into the book which is today called the New Testament.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 3:24:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men...

That is a false premise, no one recorded the life of Jesus. Anything written about Him was done so long after his death. Those who did begin writing about him had to get their information through unreliable hearsay accounts.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 3:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 3:24:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men...

That is a false premise, no one recorded the life of Jesus. Anything writeten about Him was done so long after his death. Those who did begin writing about him had to get their information through unreliable hearsay accounts.

And what more could we expect from an atheist who belongs to the godless religion, who believe by faith and faith alone that there is no God, and who are totally ignorant to the scriptures, which in their ignorance they attack that which they fear bcause of their lack of understanding.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:00:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 3:24:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men...

That is a false premise, no one recorded the life of Jesus. Anything writeten about Him was done so long after his death. Those who did begin writing about him had to get their information through unreliable hearsay accounts.

And what more could we expect from an atheist who belongs to the godless religion, who believe by faith and faith alone that there is no God, and who are totally ignorant to the scriptures, which in their ignorance they attack.

And they attack (the unknown to them) because of their fear and their lack of understanding of that which is unknown to them.

Every thing that was written about Jesus was written on documents shortly after his death in 33 AD.

But with the wars in Galilee and later Judaea, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed and all its inhabitants murdered, while the remainder in the land of Judaea who managed to escape, were dispersed throughout the lands.

Those documents which were cherished and guarded by the believers, were later gathered in the fourth century by Jerome and incorporated into the book that is today called, "The New Testament."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:12:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 3:41:58 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/20/2015 3:24:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men...

That is a false premise, no one recorded the life of Jesus. Anything writeten about Him was done so long after his death. Those who did begin writing about him had to get their information through unreliable hearsay accounts.

And what more could we expect from an atheist who belongs to the godless religion, who believe by faith and faith alone that there is no God, and who are totally ignorant to the scriptures, which in their ignorance they attack that which they fear bcause of their lack of understanding.

Pointing out your claim was false is the least you could expect, and you did, evidently.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:27:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men, and which documents were gathered in the fourth century by Jerome and incorporated into the book which is today called the New Testament.

How can you suggest the gospels were written by reliable men when we can't even know who the authors were? Do you believe that because they are called "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" that those are the true authors? Have you never read the scholarly research on the gospels?

"The Gospel of Mark" was written by an anonymous author between 70 - 90CE. He wrote in Koine Greek, not Hebrew and demonstrated a devout ignorance of Jewish beliefs, thoughts and practices. He misquoted the 10 Commandments and attributed to Moses, statements which Jews always specifically attributed to God.

"The Gospel of Matthew" contains some 600 parallel verses (copied/paraphrased), taken from "The Gospel of Mark", contains other verses believed to have come from the "Q", refers to Matthew the tax collector in the third person, and corrects the blunders found in "The Gospel of Mark" regarding Jewish practices and beliefs.

In fact, this is taken directly from an NIV Study Bible;
- "Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?" -- NIV Study Bible

"The Gospel of Luke" tells us in the first four verses theat it is not an eyewitness account, but that the information is taken from those believed to link back to eye-witnesses. In this alone, we can be assured that Luke is not the author. It contains some 300-parallel verses from Mark, as well as the merging of Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 into a single verse at Luke 9:18, which has Jesus alone praying, and at the same time, walking with his disciples. This is due to the fact that one of the sources the author mistakenly believed to be from an eye-witness, was the "Gospel of Mark", and the author's copy of "The Gospel of Mark" was damaged or missing 74.5 verses. So he simply merged the last verse before the damage (Mark 6:46), with the first verse following the damage (Mark 8:27), resulting in the nonsensical Luke 9:18. It also contains about 100-verses believed to have come from the "Q", as well as information in Luke/Acts which was taken from two works of Flavius Josephus ("Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War"), both of which were completed in 93CE.

"The Gospel of John" shows less copying from "The Gospel of Mark", than either "Luke" or "Matthew" but still contains verses clearly taken from "The Gospel of Mark". Because it borrows less from "The Gospel of Mark", it is the only non-synoptic gospel. It also contains the same information found in "Luke/Acts" which was taken from the works of Flavius Josephus.

You have not a single word from Jesus, nor anything written by anyone who ever knew or met Jesus. So the Jesus you know was sculpted by men of the 4th century council, through the gospels they selected, none of which offer any hope of being accurate, and none of which hold any intelligent claim to authenticity or eye-witness reliability.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:55:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 3:09:07 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/19/2015 2:51:47 PM, Beastt wrote:
So everything you think you know about Jesus, is based on writings selected by men who had no knowledge of what was and wasn't true,

How do you know what they know? Why I should believe you? You live over thousand years after them and you claim that you know what they "really" knew. It would be more convincing, if you wouldn"t require so much faith in you.

I'm not suggesting that you hold any faith in me. I do find it sad that I must do your research for you.

How do you propose the men of the 4th century, who had to decide among themselves -
- whether or not Jesus actually existed on Earth (because some Christians of their time didn't believe he did)
- which of several different portrayals of Jesus was correct (warrior Jesus, gnostic Jesus, pedophile Jesus, ascetic Jesus, etc.)
- whether or not Jesus was God (because Christians also disagreed on this)
- and which - of a large collection of writings - was inspired by God, (Since Christians often read from works since labeled "heretical" by the council)?

How could they possibly manage to do this despite showing no special knowledge, no special techniques, and had essentially just their own beliefs and biases to guide them, in regard to events 300-years prior?

Why did it take them 42-years of fighting among themselves to finally come to a conclusion?

And why did some of them still refuse to sign that the resulting texts were inspired by God, despite facing the consequences of exile and excommunication? How can you be so certain the council was right, when even members of that council were so sure they were wrong?

Or maybe you're incredibly ignorant when it comes to the origins of the Bible, and don't really care what is, or isn't true, as long as everyone believes what you believe, even if it is patently untrue.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
wowwhatwhy
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 5:02:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:27:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men, and which documents were gathered in the fourth century by Jerome and incorporated into the book which is today called the New Testament.

How can you suggest the gospels were written by reliable men when we can't even know who the authors were? Do you believe that because they are called "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" that those are the true authors? Have you never read the scholarly research on the gospels?

"The Gospel of Mark" was written by an anonymous author between 70 - 90CE. He wrote in Koine Greek, not Hebrew and demonstrated a devout ignorance of Jewish beliefs, thoughts and practices. He misquoted the 10 Commandments and attributed to Moses, statements which Jews always specifically attributed to God.

"The Gospel of Matthew" contains some 600 parallel verses (copied/paraphrased), taken from "The Gospel of Mark", contains other verses believed to have come from the "Q", refers to Matthew the tax collector in the third person, and corrects the blunders found in "The Gospel of Mark" regarding Jewish practices and beliefs.

In fact, this is taken directly from an NIV Study Bible;
- "Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?" -- NIV Study Bible

"The Gospel of Luke" tells us in the first four verses theat it is not an eyewitness account, but that the information is taken from those believed to link back to eye-witnesses. In this alone, we can be assured that Luke is not the author. It contains some 300-parallel verses from Mark, as well as the merging of Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 into a single verse at Luke 9:18, which has Jesus alone praying, and at the same time, walking with his disciples. This is due to the fact that one of the sources the author mistakenly believed to be from an eye-witness, was the "Gospel of Mark", and the author's copy of "The Gospel of Mark" was damaged or missing 74.5 verses. So he simply merged the last verse before the damage (Mark 6:46), with the first verse following the damage (Mark 8:27), resulting in the nonsensical Luke 9:18. It also contains about 100-verses believed to have come from the "Q", as well as information in Luke/Acts which was taken from two works of Flavius Josephus ("Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War"), both of which were completed in 93CE.

"The Gospel of John" shows less copying from "The Gospel of Mark", than either "Luke" or "Matthew" but still contains verses clearly taken from "The Gospel of Mark". Because it borrows less from "The Gospel of Mark", it is the only non-synoptic gospel. It also contains the same information found in "Luke/Acts" which was taken from the works of Flavius Josephus.


You have not a single word from Jesus, nor anything written by anyone who ever knew or met Jesus. So the Jesus you know was sculpted by men of the 4th century council, through the gospels they selected, none of which offer any hope of being accurate, and none of which hold any intelligent claim to authenticity or eye-witness reliability.

blablablablabla All I read was 2I'm an atheist who knows nothing and listens to too much Dawkins and Hitchens on YouTube".
I have a funny sig in an unusual color and now will quote a well-known user of this site to seem as if I care more about DDO drama than my inept ability to relate to people in real life:

"I want to have a nice bowl of cereal in the morning because it is my right as an American Taxpayer to enjoy cereal in the mornings. Okay im not a taxpayer." - Imabench

http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 5:12:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 5:02:34 PM, wowwhatwhy wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:27:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men, and which documents were gathered in the fourth century by Jerome and incorporated into the book which is today called the New Testament.

How can you suggest the gospels were written by reliable men when we can't even know who the authors were? Do you believe that because they are called "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" that those are the true authors? Have you never read the scholarly research on the gospels?

"The Gospel of Mark" was written by an anonymous author between 70 - 90CE. He wrote in Koine Greek, not Hebrew and demonstrated a devout ignorance of Jewish beliefs, thoughts and practices. He misquoted the 10 Commandments and attributed to Moses, statements which Jews always specifically attributed to God.

"The Gospel of Matthew" contains some 600 parallel verses (copied/paraphrased), taken from "The Gospel of Mark", contains other verses believed to have come from the "Q", refers to Matthew the tax collector in the third person, and corrects the blunders found in "The Gospel of Mark" regarding Jewish practices and beliefs.

In fact, this is taken directly from an NIV Study Bible;
- "Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?" -- NIV Study Bible

"The Gospel of Luke" tells us in the first four verses theat it is not an eyewitness account, but that the information is taken from those believed to link back to eye-witnesses. In this alone, we can be assured that Luke is not the author. It contains some 300-parallel verses from Mark, as well as the merging of Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 into a single verse at Luke 9:18, which has Jesus alone praying, and at the same time, walking with his disciples. This is due to the fact that one of the sources the author mistakenly believed to be from an eye-witness, was the "Gospel of Mark", and the author's copy of "The Gospel of Mark" was damaged or missing 74.5 verses. So he simply merged the last verse before the damage (Mark 6:46), with the first verse following the damage (Mark 8:27), resulting in the nonsensical Luke 9:18. It also contains about 100-verses believed to have come from the "Q", as well as information in Luke/Acts which was taken from two works of Flavius Josephus ("Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War"), both of which were completed in 93CE.

"The Gospel of John" shows less copying from "The Gospel of Mark", than either "Luke" or "Matthew" but still contains verses clearly taken from "The Gospel of Mark". Because it borrows less from "The Gospel of Mark", it is the only non-synoptic gospel. It also contains the same information found in "Luke/Acts" which was taken from the works of Flavius Josephus.


You have not a single word from Jesus, nor anything written by anyone who ever knew or met Jesus. So the Jesus you know was sculpted by men of the 4th century council, through the gospels they selected, none of which offer any hope of being accurate, and none of which hold any intelligent claim to authenticity or eye-witness reliability.

blablablablabla All I read was 2I'm an atheist who knows nothing and listens to too much Dawkins and Hitchens on YouTube".

And yet, I didn't write any of that. This demonstrates that no matter what you're reading, you only glean what you want to believe. And that's why you remain a blithering idiot, whose opinions aren't worth the time it takes to read them. Not one word of that came from Dawkins or from Hitchens. It came from a Study Bible, and from Bible scholars. Your refusal to accept that helps to illustrate that theism appeals primarily to those of limited intellect.

Grow up, silly. This is a debate site. If that's the closest you can come to debate, don't let the door hit you in the arse.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 6:03:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Socrates? And how do you know what you claim to know about Socrates?

What do you know about Charlemagne? And how do you know what you claim to know about Charlemagne?

What do you know about Hesiod? And how do you know what you claim to know about Hesiod?

How about the Roman Emperors before Septimus Severus? Guess what Beastt, scholars accept documents written a few decades after the initial incident and accept information copied from now non-extant documents.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 6:33:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know Jesus is a story book character. I know that because I have read stories about him in the bible.
I know that some people believe Jesus was a historical person. I know that because they told me so.
I know other people believe Jesus is myth. I also know that because they told me so.
I know some religions worship Jesus as God. I know that because I have attended religions where they teach that doctrine.
I know the character Jesus can be perceived in many different ways as representing various different things. I know that due to having heard many different interpretations of the character.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 6:36:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

People know what they know because they have been taught those things by other people who believe what they teach.
We all have a choice to believe what we are taught or to question it. That applies to any teachings not just religious ones.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 6:37:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 6:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Socrates? And how do you know what you claim to know about Socrates?

What do you know about Charlemagne? And how do you know what you claim to know about Charlemagne?

What do you know about Hesiod? And how do you know what you claim to know about Hesiod?

How about the Roman Emperors before Septimus Severus? Guess what Beastt, scholars accept documents written a few decades after the initial incident and accept information copied from now non-extant documents.

Good one Mhykiel.

Did you read that Skyangel?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:05:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 6:36:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

People know what they know because they have been taught those things by other people who believe what they teach.
We all have a choice to believe what we are taught or to question it. That applies to any teachings not just religious ones.

I would suggest there is a distinction between what you're taught, and what you know. To use an old and tired example, people used to be taught that the Earth was at the center of the solar system, and was orbited by the sun. Did they "know" this or just believe it because it was what they were taught?

The point being; people don't really "know" anything about Jesus. But those who observe the claims more objectively, tend to find the Jesus of the Bible to be fiction.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:06:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:27:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/20/2015 3:17:09 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

I know all about the life of Jesus, which was recorded by reliable men, and which documents were gathered in the fourth century by Jerome and incorporated into the book which is today called the New Testament.

How can you suggest the gospels were written by reliable men when we can't even know who the authors were? Do you believe that because they are called "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" that those are the true authors? Have you never read the scholarly research on the gospels?

"The Gospel of Mark" was written by an anonymous author between 70 - 90CE. He wrote in Koine Greek, not Hebrew and demonstrated a devout ignorance of Jewish beliefs, thoughts and practices. He misquoted the 10 Commandments and attributed to Moses, statements which Jews always specifically attributed to God.

"The Gospel of Matthew" contains some 600 parallel verses (copied/paraphrased), taken from "The Gospel of Mark", contains other verses believed to have come from the "Q", refers to Matthew the tax collector in the third person, and corrects the blunders found in "The Gospel of Mark" regarding Jewish practices and beliefs.

In fact, this is taken directly from an NIV Study Bible;
- "Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?" -- NIV Study Bible

"The Gospel of Luke" tells us in the first four verses theat it is not an eyewitness account, but that the information is taken from those believed to link back to eye-witnesses. In this alone, we can be assured that Luke is not the author. It contains some 300-parallel verses from Mark, as well as the merging of Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 into a single verse at Luke 9:18, which has Jesus alone praying, and at the same time, walking with his disciples. This is due to the fact that one of the sources the author mistakenly believed to be from an eye-witness, was the "Gospel of Mark", and the author's copy of "The Gospel of Mark" was damaged or missing 74.5 verses. So he simply merged the last verse before the damage (Mark 6:46), with the first verse following the damage (Mark 8:27), resulting in the nonsensical Luke 9:18. It also contains about 100-verses believed to have come from the "Q", as well as information in Luke/Acts which was taken from two works of Flavius Josephus ("Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War"), both of which were completed in 93CE.

"The Gospel of John" shows less copying from "The Gospel of Mark", than either "Luke" or "Matthew" but still contains verses clearly taken from "The Gospel of Mark". Because it borrows less from "The Gospel of Mark", it is the only non-synoptic gospel. It also contains the same information found in "Luke/Acts" which was taken from the works of Flavius Josephus.

The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.

The testimony of Josephus Flavianum:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence. A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts. Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The non-historical Jesus:
Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004

Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.

Tacitus comment "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. AD 71) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century,



You have not a single word from Jesus, nor anything written by anyone who ever knew or met Jesus. So the Jesus you know was sculpted by men of the 4th century council, through the gospels they selected, none of which offer any hope of being accurate, and none of which hold any intelligent claim to authenticity or eye-witness reliability.

As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts

As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts

As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:20:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

Ecamine the evidence of His bodily resurrection. If you won't beleve He is risen from the dead and He is God, it's only because you don't want to....you are protecting your pride because you don't want to be changed......God loves as you are my friend.....He knows all of your secrets and He loves you like a Father loves a child who has rebelled and gone far far away. He wants you to trust Him so He can restore you to eternal life, free you from death, negate the penalty of your sins which is Hell......He took your punishment in death because He wants you to have His eternal life in His resurrection, He lives and offers you full pardon and forgiveness......why not trust Him? What do you get going your own way? Pride and pleasure for a few moments? Is it worth it?

God loves you and so do I.....even though you have long been His enemy, He never stopped loving you and only wanted you to come home to Him where you belong.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:30:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 6:03:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Socrates? And how do you know what you claim to know about Socrates?
If you'd care to start a thread on that, I'll be happy to expound. For now, I know that three different people - all of whom are confirmed to have existed, wrote of Socrates, and their writings tend to portray the same character. Aside from that, Socrates may have existed, or he might not have existed. The evidence suggests that he probably did. The evidence in regard to Jesus, suggests that he didn't.

What do you know about Charlemagne? And how do you know what you claim to know about Charlemagne?
I've not researched the evidence for Charlemagne. I've heard the name, but never studied the character; whether fictional, or historical. I also know that we have a coin of Charlemagne, which constitutes more physical evidence than we have for Jesus.

What do you know about Hesiod? And how do you know what you claim to know about Hesiod?
I know that there exists today, contested works, which some claim to have been his work. So he may have existed, or he may not have existed. None of that has any bearing on what people do, or don't know about Jesus, which is the topic of the thread, if you'd care to address that.

How about the Roman Emperors before Septimus Severus? Guess what Beastt, scholars accept documents written a few decades after the initial incident and accept information copied from now non-extant documents.
And in such cases, they have actual authors, not suggested authorships which are contested by the evidence provided in the very works attributed to them.

Your entire post demonstrates that you still don't see why your arguments are totally fallacious. If I claim that Bugs Bunny is a historical character, does that make Donald Duck a historical character? Each one has to be analyzed independently. The claims made of Jesus are certainly far more worthy of an expectation of evidence, than the claims made of Charlemagne or Socrates. In fact, when you try to compare Jesus to any human character of history, you're being disingenuous, since you believe that he was far more than human, and performed feats beyond human ability.

If the evidence for Socrates (or any of the others you mention), is insufficient to present a reasonable probability that the character actually existed, that in no way affects whether or not there is sufficient evidence to claim Jesus as a historical character. If there is too little evidence to support the probability for Socrates, then he should not be accepted as a historical character. And that's where that argument ends. It holds no bearing on Jesus, historical or otherwise.

Your argument is essentially that if we accept one character as historical on insufficient evidence, then we should accept all characters without sufficient evidence, as also being historical. That's a purely fallacious stance. If there is insufficient evidence, then there's insufficient evidence. And we must also consider the likelihood of finding evidence. If one speaks of a peasant from 14 centuries ago, who did nothing of historical interest, then we have no reasonable expectation that evidence will exist.

However, if you suggest a man who wandered about raising the dead, multiplying food stuffs from nothing, healing the sick, gaining vast popularity sufficient to be greeted by the multitudes of Jerusalem, and warranted questioning by the father-in-law of the high priest, by the high priest himself, by the Jewish authorities, by Pontias Pilate, by the King himself and then by Pilate again; it becomes a very disingenuous claim that he should be accepted as a historical character, when we find that none of the more than 60-known historians of the day wrote a single word about him, nor do we have a single writing which even mentions him, by anyone - historian or otherwise - living in the same time.

And when we weigh that against the claims that he lived in Nazareth at a time when Nazareth appears to have been abandoned, that the writings about him tend to follow various myths and fictions of the day, and that even those who followed the beliefs based upon him were in disagreement over whether or not he actually existed on Earth, then it becomes quite prudent to adhere to the outcome of an objective algorithm, which shows that the evidence is insufficient to claim him as a historical character.

Capisce?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:39:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 7:20:05 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

Ecamine the evidence of His bodily resurrection.
As there is no such evidence to examine, that takes little time and effort. However, we do have evidence suggesting that the resurrection was a latter addition to the Gospel of Mark, written by other than the original author, and forged decades later.

If you won't beleve He is risen from the dead and He is God, it's only because you don't want to....you are protecting your pride because you don't want to be changed......God loves as you are my friend.....He knows all of your secrets and He loves you like a Father loves a child who has rebelled and gone far far away.
Not at all. I disbelieve it because it remains completely without credibility. That is - by the way - the same reason you disbelieve in Zeus.

He wants you to trust Him so He can restore you to eternal life, free you from death, negate the penalty of your sins which is Hell.
Make up your mind. If God exists and that's what God wants, then nothing is stopping him. I certainly can't stand in the way of an omnipotent entity, should any such entity exist. The reality is that YOU want me to believe this, not God. God has never said one word about it, never shown the slightest objective evidence that he exists, or demonstrated any kind of benevolence.

.....He took your punishment in death because He wants you to have His eternal life in His resurrection, He lives and offers you full pardon and forgiveness......why not trust Him? What do you get going your own way? Pride and pleasure for a few moments? Is it worth it?
Were it true (rather than just laughable), that God took my punishment, it's pertinent to remember that he also called for that punishment. I certainly didn't claim the right to punishment, which God then snatched from me. It was his decision that we must be punished, and his decision that he would punish himself instead. It sounds very much like a character of extremely low self-esteem, who turned to cutting and self-mutilation, and then blames everyone else.

God loves you and so do I
If God loves me then let God speak for God. You should probably pipe down.

.....even though you have long been His enemy, He never stopped loving you and only wanted you to come home to Him where you belong.
I am not God's enemy. I cannot have an enemy without evidence that the enemy actually exists. And that's something you haven't been able to offer, and God has never provided. Do you live in fear of the Grand Fairy King? The Grand Fairy King loves you, and needs you to acknowledge his existence, despite the complete lack of evidence for his existence.

Do you now believe in the Grand Fairy King? Why, or why not?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 7:39:38 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/20/2015 7:20:05 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:49:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
What do you know about Jesus? And how do you know what you claim to know about Jesus?

Ecamine the evidence of His bodily resurrection.
As there is no such evidence to examine, that takes little time and effort. However, we do have evidence suggesting that the resurrection was a latter addition to the Gospel of Mark, written by other than the original author, and forged decades later.

If you won't beleve He is risen from the dead and He is God, it's only because you don't want to....you are protecting your pride because you don't want to be changed......God loves as you are my friend.....He knows all of your secrets and He loves you like a Father loves a child who has rebelled and gone far far away.
Not at all. I disbelieve it because it remains completely without credibility. That is - by the way - the same reason you disbelieve in Zeus.

He wants you to trust Him so He can restore you to eternal life, free you from death, negate the penalty of your sins which is Hell.
Make up your mind. If God exists and that's what God wants, then nothing is stopping him. I certainly can't stand in the way of an omnipotent entity, should any such entity exist. The reality is that YOU want me to believe this, not God. God has never said one word about it, never shown the slightest objective evidence that he exists, or demonstrated any kind of benevolence.

.....He took your punishment in death because He wants you to have His eternal life in His resurrection, He lives and offers you full pardon and forgiveness......why not trust Him? What do you get going your own way? Pride and pleasure for a few moments? Is it worth it?
Were it true (rather than just laughable), that God took my punishment, it's pertinent to remember that he also called for that punishment. I certainly didn't claim the right to punishment, which God then snatched from me. It was his decision that we must be punished, and his decision that he would punish himself instead. It sounds very much like a character of extremely low self-esteem, who turned to cutting and self-mutilation, and then blames everyone else.

God loves you and so do I
If God loves me then let God speak for God. You should probably pipe down.

.....even though you have long been His enemy, He never stopped loving you and only wanted you to come home to Him where you belong.
I am not God's enemy. I cannot have an enemy without evidence that the enemy actually exists. And that's something you haven't been able to offer, and God has never provided. Do you live in fear of the Grand Fairy King? The Grand Fairy King loves you, and needs you to acknowledge his existence, despite the complete lack of evidence for his existence.

Do you now believe in the Grand Fairy King? Why, or why not?

Ok. God still loves you and so do I.