Why Are You Attacking Jesus?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
benev brought up the fact that the burden of proof rests on you, you ignored that

Either ignored it or he has me on ignore. I find that if people can't stand to hear what I have to say, they put me on ignore...

Originally posted by NowAmFound
shi:

www.tektonics.org...

On the differences within the gospels...they are actually discrepancies that help support the bible's authenticity. There are tons of books on this subject. If you are genuinely questioning, I can find some good ones for you.

Haven't had time to go through your copycat link but no doubt it will be along the same lines as either it was copied from christianity or that there is really no evidence to suggest that christians stole/borrowed anything!!!
On the gospels, what about the synoptic problem? and why choose only four gospels with only two of them 'authored' by apostles? So if there are books to help clear up the confusion I would like to see them.

On the "lack of other evidence"...this whole discussion has been a demonstration that there is not a lack. You can choose to ignore it. Most people you talk to will think you make sense. Anyone educated will probably laugh at you.

Are you saying that because of my views, and others that share similar views, that we are ill educated?
Are you trying to say that because you are a christian, that you have authority to tell me and others that we are not as intelligent or informed as even the dumbest christian????

P.S. On the burden of proof...already been explained to you. Going in circles won't change anything.

Fine!!!! you prove that beer elves dont exist and I will convert to christianity today!!!



G

Originally posted by shihulud
and why choose only four gospels with only two of them 'authored' by apostles? So if there are books to help clear up the confusion I would like to see them.

I don't believe any of them were actually authored by apostles, but by people about 100 years later with the same name.

Just an FYI

Shi:

Well, when you can read it...no rush.

I will find you some good books.

No, I am not saying that you are not educated, only that the majority of historians and scholars recognize that there is adequate proof of Jesus' existence. You are not a scholar or historian, still, you seem to be perseverating on the idea that there is not enough proof for you. Why should anyone measure "proof" by your standards? Who are you?


Finally, I am not here to convert you. What gave you that idea? You are funny.

[edit on 20-12-2006 by NowAmFound]

madness:

Wow. I have nothing left to say. Apparently, you can't understand any of the points made this far. That's okay. I really don't have the time to keep repeating myself. Whatever you say, dude.

Originally posted by NowAmFound
Shi:

Well, when you can read it...no rush.

I will find you some good books.

No, I am not saying that you are not educated, only that the majority of historians and scholars recognize that there is adequate proof of Jesus' existence.

The majority of the worlds population believe in a deity of some sort but that still dont make it true!!! I have yet to see any viable evidence that proves that jesus was historical - dont get me wrong, there are bits that make me think that jesus was based on a historical person, just not the person portrayed in the NT. And as I said even if the existance of a historical jesus could be proven then it would STILL not provide evidence of DIVINITY.

You are not a scholar or historian, still, you seem to be perseverating on the idea that there is not enough proof for you. Why should anyone measure "proof" by your standards? Who are you?

I am a person with as much right to decide on the facts given as any historian or scholar - just because someone has learned a subject doesnt give them a automatic right of complete knowledge and understanding nor a monpoly on what is to be believed.

Finally, I am not here to convert you. What gave you that idea? You are funny.

[edit on 20-12-2006 by NowAmFound]

Funny, thats the usual practice for christians. Personally I dont care if you want to convert anyone, as all I was saying was that if you could disprove the existance of Beer elves then I WOULD convert to god and jesus.


G

Originally posted by NowAmFound
madness:

Wow. I have nothing left to say. Apparently, you can't understand any of the points made this far. That's okay. I really don't have the time to keep repeating myself. Whatever you say, dude.

i do understand what you're doing
it's a childish argument
the argument is "i don't need to prove it exists because you can't prove it doesn't"

well, i'm going to repost what benev posted in response to that statement

You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist.
...
The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities.

the burden of proof

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


i do understand what you're doing
it's a childish argument
the argument is "i don't need to prove it exists because you can't prove it doesn't"

well, i'm going to repost what benev posted in response to that statement

It's not a childish argument, its called faith.

Like a child's belief in Santa is considered faith?

Like a child's belief in the tooth fairy is faith?

But why are those points childish, and the belief in Jesus not?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Like a child's belief in Santa is considered faith?

Like a child's belief in the tooth fairy is faith?

But why are those points childish, and the belief in Jesus not?

Because Santa brings presents, that are not his own.

Because the tooth fairy takes teeth, and gives money that isn't theirs.

Because Jesus gives immortality, and freedom from sin.

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
Because Jesus gives immortality, and freedom from sin.

but jesus also requires us to lose our intellectual freedom
to stop questioning
hell, in the bible it actually states that testing god is sinful...

yeah, in the words of my generation, it's hellas sketchy

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
Because Jesus gives immortality, and freedom from sin.

but jesus also requires us to lose our intellectual freedom
to stop questioning
hell, in the bible it actually states that testing god is sinful...

yeah, in the words of my generation, it's hellas sketchy

How do you figure he requires us to lose our intellectual freedom?

Well, since he asks you to deny any logical thought regarding his nature, such as questioning the legitimacy of the bible based on simple reason is one example of him asking us to deny our intellect, and accept the impossible as fact.

He never asked us to deny our reasoning, he even proved who he was by the miracles he performed.

He is VERY correct saying we need to relinquish our intellectual freedom...

We need to stop putting so much faith in that alone.... because if we do, we will MISS the point entirely...

You can't draw from the abstract when your concentrated on the absolute-crap we call intellectual freedom.. lol because it isn't freedom, it is a cage...

Originally posted by thehumbleone
He never asked us to deny our reasoning, he even proved who he was by the miracles he performed.

If that's all of your proof, then it's pretty lacking. It's a book, not confirmed evidence.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
He never asked us to deny our reasoning, he even proved who he was by the miracles he performed

really?

you're actually going to go with THAT argument?

ok, let me break it down

there has never been an event that is beyond scientific explaination, you cannot include the events where the scientists never had a crack at it

and, you know, people can STAGE "miracles"

there has never been an event that is beyond scientific explaination, you cannot include the events where the scientists never had a crack at it.

There hasn't? Did you forget about the modern day Catholic mystics? The miracle at Fatima, cancer in patients suddenly disappearing, heck, they can't even figure out how the shroud of Turin was made without modern technology.

Then there is also the incorruptibles, the painting of Guadalupe, ect, ect.

There are so many I could name, but I'll wait.

Okay, they may be beyond current scientific understanding, but to assume that they are "miracles" is just as primative as thinking Thor makes lightning with his hammer.

because their is no real jesus he a fictonal god that shows no proof of excistence.