"no, I'm actually an athiest"

philologos

You didn't just say "Jesus didn't exist". You said, although Paul specifically wrote about instances of Jesus' life, he was really saying that this was all mythical, without any basis from the text to suggest this. That's convoluted reasoning if I ever heard such. Honestly, I'm simply saying there are much much better arguments against Christianity than this.

The historical case for the existence of Jesus, goes further beyond Paul's writings by the by and the Bible, considering quite a few non-Christian authors referred to him in the first century.

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

You didn't just say "Jesus didn't exist". You said, although Paul specifically wrote about instances of Jesus' life, he was really saying that this was all mythical, without any basis from the text to suggest this. That's convoluted reasoning if I ever heard such.

I'm genuinely sorry for that, I thought I had said it. There is nothing in Paul's text to place Jesus on earth, only after his writings did Mark place Jesus on earth as a physical hero. As you no doubt are aware, this was the common form of cultic religions springing up around the Roman Empire at the time.

The historical case for the existence of Jesus, goes further beyond Paul's writings by the by and the Bible, considering quite a few non-Christian authors referred to him in the first century.

All after his death. There are no accounts of his life written while he was alive, no Roman governor would release a killer of Roman citizens or be bullied by a mob of Jews. Caesar would not allow a vassal king to butcher a whole generation of babies.

It's all nonsense, the whole story is barking mad.

OutlawPete

liah wrote: »

Why on earth are you expecting me to apologize for calling you out on being equally as childish as the people you were chastising?

Hang on, that is NOT what you said earlier on today in your well thanked post where you were quite happy to have a pop at me in your post full of untruths.

NOW you are saying that MrStuffins was "equally as childish", yet earlier today you where defending him saying that there was "no apparent reasons" for my replies to him.

Which is it?

You either approved of what he said to other users or you don't, can't have your cake and eat it.

liah wrote: »

It's all well and good you're changing your tune now..

My tune hasn't changed one bit.

liah wrote: »

.. but there's no way I'm apologizing ..

Fine, don't apologize for saying things that weren't true, your choice.

liah wrote: »

I was nothing but respectful throughout the entire thread, not just to you but to each and every person.

I NEVER said you weren't Liah, I had no issue with you whatsoever.

You happily went on your little crusade early, proudly announcing to the thread that you had "clicked on" my "username" and found all my posts, which you then proceeded to go on and post and declare that that I had made all those posts for "no apparent reason" and that MrStuffins was "fine" with everyone else but me.

I have shown that all to be a crock of **** by posting all his posts were he was anything but fine with other uses that were respectful to him and so showing why exactly I replied as I did and you still feel you don't owe me an apology?

liah wrote: »

You've absolutely no right to ask for me, of ALL the people in this thread, to apologize.

Of course I do.

There was an "apparent reason" why I posted what I did, MrStuffins wasn't "fine" with others as you claimed him to be and I didn't call anyone "sad".

I would hate to see what you would need to do in order for you to feel that you do owe someone an apology.

liah wrote: »

Like I said before, I'm done.

Yes, I was done with the thread too and you didn't seem to let that stop you quoting a half a dozen of my posts.

Yet here you are expecting me to extend you the courtesy that you denied me - yeah right.

liah wrote: »

I will not be responding in this thread.

Fine, but don't quote my posts and accuse me what you did and yet then act all put out because I dared to reply to it, what did you expect exactly.

philologos

Funnily enough, I'd nearly say the same about this current argument. Barking mad considering all the evidence we have to the contrary from history concerning Jesus, and absurd given the texts that Paul and all the other Apostles wrote about Jesus' existence.

Marcus.Aurelius

Just for Jakkass,

All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour-character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity.

If you consider allegorical evidence, state papers, there are no records.

Funnily enough, I'd nearly say the same about this current argument. Barking mad considering all the evidence we have to the contrary from history concerning Jesus, and absurd given the texts that Paul and all the other Apostles wrote about Jesus' existence.

What History? There's nothing there, except from the Church and the Gospels! Where is the allegorical evidence?

And you still have nothing from Paul that places Jesus on Earth. It's all too vague for a god to have been involved. It's just too ridiculous to prop up. Why do you bother?

Greentopia

bleg wrote: »

www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm

Fantastic article, thank you.

krudler

Should we be forced to remove any religious emblems from our homes just in case a non-religous person sees it and becomes offended?

Do you exact punishment whenever some-one says in public things like 'Oh my god' 'For god's sake' or 'Jesus, Mary and Joseph'. How about 'Bless you' when some-one sneezes

Do you deny people the right to have religious weddings, funerals and christenings? Do we stop celebrating Easter, Christmas etc? Do we remove wedding/funeral/christening annoucements from the media if they are religious in nature?

Do we stop pilgrimages to places like Knock or Croagh Patrick?

Do we stop people wearing crosses around their necks?

Do you ban religous greeting cards, books, paintings?

Do you make mass illegal? Do you force priests, brothers and nuns away from their vocation? Do we ban chaplains in hospitals, colleges etc.

Do we get rid of any relics of Saints both modern(in churches etc) and old (in museums etc)

Do you make stating your religion outside your front door either verbally or on paper a crime or something at the very least to be sneered at?

Yes

AudreyHepburn

krudler wrote: »

Yes

So basically having religion should be a crime? Are we back in 1940s Germany?

Marcus.Aurelius

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So basically having religion should be a crime? Are we back in 1940s Germany?

Two godwins today. How cool is that!

MagicMarker

Hey outlawpete, instead of bitching and moaning, is there any chance you can... you know.... answer some of the questions that people have asked, that you have ignored?

John_Rambo

PAULWATSON wrote: »

I don't ever want to be confused with an athiest. I don't pride myself on "the scientific method", or believe in evolution for that matter

Can you just respect other peoples beliefs? I respect yours, may not agree with you, but I don't call you smug or little.

Marcus.Aurelius

@Jakkass

Perhaps you don't realise that while I readily acknowledge that Jesus is placed on Earth in the Gospels and by later writers, it is evident that Paul thought Jesus was some mythical character, never having existed on Earth.

The point is that the whole thing is made up, added to and modified over time.

Badly.

philologos

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Just for Jakkass,

All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour-character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity.

I've heard these too. Mithra was born from a rock as a fully grown adult. Not all that similar to Christianity. There are similar explanations for much of the comparisons that came out of that badly cited film Zeitgeist: The Movie.

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

If you consider allegorical evidence, state papers, there are no records.

No records of which?

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

What History? There's nothing there, except from the Church and the Gospels! Where is the allegorical evidence?

This is also false. Josephus, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Lucretius, the Babylonian Talmud, amongst others do refer to Jesus.

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

And you still have nothing from Paul that places Jesus on Earth. It's all too vague for a god to have been involved. It's just too ridiculous to prop up. Why do you bother?

Have you anything to back up that Paul genuinely believed that Jesus was eating with the disciples in heaven? Or that Jesus was crucified in heaven also? - Your claim is the one that needs justification. There is no point responding to a claim that is made without justification. I've clearly shown you examples where Paul refers to Jesus' ministry and life, and you say "Well I have no reason to believe that Paul wasn't talking about a mythical Jesus than a real one". It's absurd. You know it, I know it, and the people who are reading know it.

I've shown you clearly from Paul's own writing that he actually met Peter, and James the brother of Jesus before he wrote anything. Do you think that they actually told him that Jesus was a mythical figure?

As I say your claim about Paul seems more grandiose than my saying that Paul actually believed that Jesus was on earth.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

It's absurd. You know it, I know it, and the people who are reading know it.

Can I save this quote? Ahh lovely irony.:)

Son Of A Vidic

MrStuffins wrote: »

You are the only user to have taken such offence to me. I was debating, you were not.

Actually no he's not the only user I'm afraid.

MrStuffins wrote: »

when people asked you questions, you never answered them.

Ironically that sounds like your talking about yourself.

MrStuffins wrote: »

At least i was debating, you were and are just beong obnoxious!

I wish you were actually debating, because you offered nothing to me in our exchanges except.........except...... the repetition of nothingness.

I will now join some posters before me in exiting this thread permanently, adiós!

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

This is also false. Josephus, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Lucretius, the Babylonian Talmud, amongst others do refer to Jesus.

All written after Jesus' death. What's up with that?

Have you anything to back up that Paul genuinely believed that Jesus was eating with the disciples in heaven? Or that Jesus was crucified in heaven also? - Your claim is the one that needs justification. There is no point responding to a claim that is made without justification. I've clearly shown you examples where Paul refers to Jesus' ministry and life, and you say "Well I have no reason to believe that Paul wasn't talking about a mythical Jesus than a real one". It's absurd. You know it, I know it, and the people who are reading know it.

I've shown you clearly from Paul's own writing that he actually met Peter, and James the brother of Jesus before he wrote anything. Do you think that they actually told him that Jesus was a mythical figure?

As I say your claim about Paul seems more grandiose than my saying that Paul actually believed that Jesus was on earth.

You still haven't got one scripture that shows clearly that Paul knew Jesus existed on Earth.

OutlawPete

TPD wrote: »

Lol, you won't explain your side of the argument unless Liah apologises?

If you read the thread you would know that I have already stated the areas of Evolution that I do not accept as fact.

Liah asked me specific questions, it was them that I said I would address if she took back her earlier comments.

TPD wrote: »

is still mentioning it.

Very childish methods of argument Pete.

I was speaking of my only wanting an apology for accusing me of replying to MrStuffins, in the way that I had: "for no apparent reasons".

Sure don't let any of that get in the way of your white knighting though.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Hey outlawpete, instead of bitching and moaning, is there any chance you can... you know.... answer some of the questions that people have asked, that you have ignored?

Sure, no problem.

Only thing is, accusing me of "bitching and moaning" and other similar comments you made in the thread, would exclude you from someone that I would be willing to converse with on the subject of Evolution, wouldn't want someone being condescending to me, now would I.

See, it is comments like that, which just make the OP's point for him.

All you atheists can gasp in horror at all the 'thanks' that the OP received, but at the end of the day, you know he has a point.

MagicMarker

medicman2009 wrote: »

Actually no he's not the only user I'm afraid.



Ironically that sounds like your talking about yourself.




I wish you were actually debating, because you offered nothing to me in our exchanges except.........except...... the repetition of nothingness.

I will now join some posters before me in exiting this thread permanently, adiós!

Does this mean you're not going to show us the evidence that proves gravity to be a 100% fact?

Such a shame!

philologos

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

All written after Jesus. What's up with that?

Not much relevant. Particularly when Josephus and other writers would have been writing at a time when eye witnesses would have existed.

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

You still haven't got one scripture that shows clearly that Paul knew Jesus existed on Earth.

I've cited many. I've also explained how your reasoning is absolutely fallacious.

On the other hand, you've provided nothing for making such assumptions to begin with. The case that Paul is writing about Jesus in another universe needs to be substantiated also as I would see it.

AudreyHepburn

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Two godwins today. How cool is that!

To be fair if people want religion to be completely private then all things I mentioned would have to happen.

Yes I know it seems unrealistic and that is exactly the point.

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

I've heard these too. Mithra was born from a rock as a fully grown adult. Not all that similar to Christianity.

Oh noes, one is different?????? Compare them all and you'll see how unoriginal Jesus is. Horus was crucified first to sit at the right hand of the father.

Why don't you believe in Horus? He predates Jesus!

MagicMarker

OutlawPete wrote: »

Sure, no problem.

Only thing is, accusing me of "bitching and moaning" and other similar comments you made in the thread, would exclude you from someone that I would be willing to converse with on the subject of Evolution.

See, it is comments like that, which just make the OP's point for him.

All you atheists can gasp in horror at all the 'thanks' that the OP received, but at the end of the day, you know he has a point.

It doesn't really seem like you want to converse with anyone on the subject of evolution, you just ignore people's questions and don't back up your own statements.

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

Not much relevant. Particularly when Josephus and other writers would have been writing at a time when eye witnesses would have existed.

Oh yes, when the religion existed. That's hilarious. You can find eyewitnesses to Buddha appearing in Bangkok every other weekend. What about real evidence????

Execution orders with Jesus' name on them?? Roman tax records with Jesus in them?? Something you know, concrete.

I've cited many. I've also explained how your reasoning is absolutely fallacious.

Not one, quote one now and cite it for all to see. And be specific, no more hiding behind whole chapters.

On the other hand, you've provided nothing for making such assumptions to begin with. The case that Paul is writing about Jesus in another universe needs to be substantiated also as I would see it.

I don't need to, it's religion!!

philologos

I suggest to save time that you research for yourself. Google Zeitgeist refuted, amongst other things. The arguments made in Zeitgeist have even been criticised by skeptics such as yourselves. Skeptics Magazine did a critique a few years ago.

It will save me from pulling my hair out, and it'll give you a few reasons why Zeitgeist isn't generally regarded as a reliable source on this subject

As for Horus, Horus more than likely did predate Jesus, but there is no evidence that the story is in any way similar to Christianity. If you could find a manuscript that claims what you would like it to claim dated before Christianity that would be good. If they date, post Christianity, this is not sufficient evidence, as pagan groups could have easily modified their beliefs as Christianity came on the scene.

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

I suggest to save time that you research for yourself. Google Zeitgeist refuted, amongst other things. The arguments made in Zeitgeist have even been criticised by skeptics such as yourselves. Skeptics Magazine did a critique a few years ago.

It will save me from pulling my hair out, and it'll give you a few reasons why Zeitgeist isn't generally regarded as a reliable source on this subject

I wasn't quoting from Zeitgeist. Can you refute that the other myths prevalent at the time, taken in their variability are actually all that different?

You should watch "The God that wasn't there" and maybe you can learn more about where I'm coming from.

philologos

^^ This is a film that makes similar claims to the ones you are making. Either way, if it isn't based on Zeitgeist, there is plenty of evidence that refutes the claims you are making that can be researched quite easily by doing what I said.

As I said, I'm young, I'd much rather my hair fall out in proper season :pac:

Marcus.Aurelius

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ This is a film that makes similar claims to the ones you are making. Either way, if it isn't based on Zeitgeist, there is plenty of evidence that refutes the claims you are making that can be researched quite easily by doing what I said.

As I said, I'm young, I'd much rather my hair fall out in proper season :pac:

I don't know why you're concentrating on this movie, I never saw it and I'm not quoting from it or using it at all.

Have you read the stories of these other Gods? I have read many of them, particularly the Greek ones, there are a lot of similarities to Jesus, too many to ignore. It becomes crystal clear that Jesus is just another hapless fairytale made up from pieces of other commonly held fairytales.

OutlawPete

MagicMarker wrote: »

It doesn't really seem like you want to converse with anyone on the subject of evolution, you just ignore people's questions and don't back up your own statements.

Other way around my friend.

It is ME that put questions to people earlier in the thread, yourself in fact - and you said you didn't know the answers to them.

Which is of course why I put the questions in the first place, think that might have gone over your head at the time though.

To accept Evolution, I believe - is to accept ALL that Evolutionists declare as fact and that is just something that I am not willing to do.

You can swallow all the hypothesis you wish and declare them facts as much as you like, but at the end of the day, they are anything but.

Now, I must go out, but please don't think I have "disappeared"

philologos

I'm concentrating on this film, because the claims you are making are identical to those made in it, and indeed on my stint on these boards such claims have been trotted around with nothing major to back them up. Questioning is all well and good, but questioning should have substance. I expect you to back up claims such as saying that Paul believed that Jesus was eating with his disciples in outer space if you are to actually expect me to back up that Paul actually referred to events in Jesus' life.

As for Greek gods. I'm quite happy to have you argue your case with quotation if you can demonstrate that the texts pre-date Christianity, and that they actually do refer to events with striking similarity from primary sources.

Otherwise, I personally can't verify anything you're saying.

As for substantiating. Yes you do need to do this if you are to make claims that are completely counter-intuitive in respect to Christianity. Otherwise it isn't a discussion, it's a one way interrogation, which I won't be involving myself in.

DOC09UNAM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Hey outlawpete, instead of bitching and moaning, is there any chance you can... you know.... answer some of the questions that people have asked, that you have ignored?

Being rude and insulting people isn't the way to get them to debate with you, is it?

medicman2009 wrote: »

Ironically that sounds like your talking about yourself.

It's actually hypocritical, not ironic.

OutlawPete wrote: »

All you atheists can gasp in horror at all the 'thanks' that the OP received, but at the end of the day, you know he has a point.

You can't lump us all in the same boat because of our beliefs, I for one am interested in what you have said/have to say, just because other's are ignorant and rude, doesn't make us all that way.