• First Jesus-era house discovered in Nazareth
    164 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19125662]You sneezing and a man who supposedly was the son of god are 2 very different things.[/QUOTE] Oh god you are so fucking annoynig Let's just say there was a man called Jesus exactly at the time he was supposed to be alive. Let's say he was a teacher or something, and he gave religious teachings to his disciples. NO FUCKING MIRACLES. After he dies for whatever reason his disciples decide to glorify the things that happened in his life. So there never was a man named Jesus who walked on water or turned it to wine. Does that mean he doesn't exist?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;19125706]Does that mean he doesn't exist?[/QUOTE] Yeah because that Jesus didnt exist and the Jesus of miracles didnt exist, so therefore he didnt exist now stop trying to argue fairy tales to me and show me some damn facts.
[QUOTE=David29;19125069]Fair enough. If you don't want to believe in it then that's up to you. I, however, believe that Jesus did exist.[/QUOTE] Sigh. This isn't a question of belief, it's a question of information. And the information clearly states that he did not exist. If you were arrested for running a red light, do you think you could get away with "That the light is red might be your opinion, but I still believe it was green"? This isn't how the world works, buddy. You don't just get to invent reality.
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19125733]Yeah because that Jesus didnt exist and the Jesus of miracles didnt exist, so therefore he didnt exist now stop trying to argue fairy tales to me and show me some damn facts.[/QUOTE] You can't say "HE DIDN'T EXIST THEREFORE HE DIDN'T EXIST" that's just not how debate works [editline]04:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;19125757]Sigh. This isn't a quesiton of belief, it's a question of information. And the information clearly states that he did not exist.[/QUOTE] It doesn't [I]state[/I] he doesn't exist. It [I]suggests[/I] it didn't exist. [editline]04:08PM[/editline] I'm not arguing this point because I actually give a toss whether or not some guy called Jesus exists. I just think you'd all be better off if you opened your eyes a bit instead of following your boring, tiresome biased, unyielding view of religion.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;19125757]Sigh. This isn't a question of belief, it's a question of information. And the information clearly states that he did not exist. If you were arrested for running a red light, do you think you could get away with "That the light is red might be your opinion, but I still believe it was green"? This isn't how the world works, buddy. You don't just get to invent reality.[/QUOTE] :nattyburn: [QUOTE=Robbobin;19125760]You can't say "HE DIDN'T EXIST THEREFORE HE DIDN'T EXIST" [/QUOTE] I can and did. [QUOTE=Robbobin;19125760] I'm not arguing this point because I actually give a toss whether or not some guy called Jesus exists. I just think you'd all be better off if you opened your eyes a bit instead of following your boring, tiresome biased, unyielding view of religion.[/QUOTE] Im not being biased Im going by the information given to me and not using BIASED religious views in my argument.
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19125809]:nattyburn: I can and did.[/QUOTE] okay then, you can't say it and maintain a decent argument. [QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19125809]Im not being biased Im going by the information given to me and not using BIASED religious views in my argument.[/QUOTE] You're totally ignoring my perfectly logical points because it's not convenient for your argument. Of course you're biased.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;19125847] You're totally ignoring my perfectly logical points because it's not convenient for your argument. Of course you're biased.[/QUOTE] Your argument is going off of made up points of view, my argument is going off of historical documents, its only fair that I ignore idiocy.
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19125865]Your argument is going off of made up points of view, my argument is going off of historical documents, its only fair that I ignore idiocy.[/QUOTE] I've came to the conclusion you're not actually reading my posts so I'm not going to carry this up anymore.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;19125879]I've came to the conclusion you're not actually reading my posts so I'm not going to carry this up anymore.[/QUOTE] Glad youre giving up, I too was tiring of this meaningless argument.
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19125385]And I find those who are willing to argue one point but not willing to accept another extremely annoying aswell, the fact remains [b]in my opinion[/b] that Jesus didnt exist and the only evidence anyone can pull out of their ass are biblical documents. [/QUOTE] Fixed. I consider anyone who believes they can write off an entire religion/part of it without [i]substantial[/i] evidence to be rather arrogant.
Why should religion be exempt from burden of proof just because lots of people believe in it?
Well it's not really his opinion that there's an amazing lack of historical evidence for someone, nor is it something you can really have an opinion on. Either way, I think I see where Hunterbrute's coming from. If there's some guy named Jesus and there's another guy called Jesus who's the son of god, can walk on water, can feed a thousand people from a load of bread and some fish, whose father created the universe and is actually part of a trinity making him partially god(however that works) and so on, are these really the same person? It's like claiming unicorns exist despite there being no evidence for them, then you come across algae and say oh look, that's a unicorn, despite it being absolutely nothing like what was claimed, sharing only one thing in common: it is life. Are they really the same thing at all?
[QUOTE=David29;19125964]Fixed. I consider anyone who believes they can write off an entire religion/part of it without [i]substantial[/i] evidence to be rather arrogant.[/QUOTE] Evidence is everything, made up fairy tales are nothing. you have no evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and I have evidence supporting his non existence, which should you believe? You can believe the Earth is a couple thousand years old, but we all know its billions of years old that is what the evidence says compared to shit written by a man trying to find how old the Earth is. Im going to continue "writing off religion/part of it" without substantial evidence, this is not arrogance but the only proper way of dealing with a situation like this. Continue to stay ignorant. [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;19126036]Why should religion be exempt from burden of proof just because lots of people believe in it?[/QUOTE] Why should religion be exempt from anything? Why cant we question religion and ask for supporting evidence to its claims?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;19126036]Why should religion be exempt from burden of proof just because lots of people believe in it?[/QUOTE] It's not. That's why we have the bible. No doubt someone will say that is not proof, but why not? Even if the church did alter it over time, the fundamentals behind it are the same which rely on various testimonies from different people. Whereas the case against Jesus seems merely to be that he isn't mentioned extensively in history. So in my eyes there is more evidence for the existance of Jesus than against.
[QUOTE=David29;19126099]It's not. That's why we have the bible. No doubt someone will say that is not proof, but why not? Even if the church did alter it over time, the fundamentals behind it are the same which rely on various testimonies from different people. Whereas the case against Jesus seems merely to be that he isn't mentioned extensively in history. So in my eyes there is more evidence for the existance of Jesus than against.[/QUOTE] The bible cannot and never will be accepted as any sort of proof to ANYTHING. The Bible is a collection of information written by tons of people over many years, people change shit and make stuff up for their own benefits or to make things more interesting. YOU CANNOT USE THE BIBLE AS A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE, if you try to argue this then Im going to use the Roman gods as proof and their religion as proof for my arguments. Sounds fair right? Youre obviously going to say that its not correct and those are Myths and then Ill just say the same about the Bible, no point arguing this.
[I]2000 years into the future...[/I] "But sir, it's generally accepted fact that a man named George Bush existed!" "NO AFRAID NOT, THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS DETAILING A MAN WITH THIS NAME (despite many, many of the records having been lost, damaged, destroyed or forged) AND [I]THEREFORE[/I] IT IS A CERTAINTY HE DID NOT EXIST. :downs:"
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19126097]Evidence is everything, made up fairy tales are nothing. you have no evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and I have evidence supporting his non existence, which should you believe? You can believe the Earth is a couple thousand years old, but we all know its billions of years old that is what the evidence says compared to shit written by a man trying to find how old the Earth is. Im going to continue "writing off religion/part of it" without substantial evidence, this is not arrogance but the only proper way of dealing with a situation like this. Continue to stay ignorant. Why should religion be exempt from anything? Why cant we question religion and ask for supporting evidence to its claims?[/QUOTE] I can provide evidence in the form of various testimonies from people such as Mark, Luke and John. Can you give a testimony of someone from that era who denies the existance of Jesus? And yes it is arrogance. You believe you can say that it is a fact that Jesus isn't real based on limited evidence when really it is just what you believe. I believe Jesus to be real, but I don't consider it fact. However, I won't say he isn't real until I see substantial proof. You are arrogant because you automatically assume you are right and everyone else is wrong. Continue to stay arrogant. Finally, at what point have I ever said you can't question religion? Edit: I have just remembered a point I meant to bring up. My grandfather was a Ukrainian but ended up serving in the SS. With the fall of both Nazi Germany and the USSR, no records of him serving with the SS or even being alive exist. By your logic, my grandfather did not exist because he is not mentioned in history.
[QUOTE=KestasLT;19123918]Be polite to Jesus kids without him, we wouldn't have christmas![/QUOTE] We'd have that pagan thing that was about the same except Christians would not have hi-jacked it.
[QUOTE=David29;19125069]Fair enough. If you don't want to believe in it then that's up to you. I, however, believe that Jesus did exist. It's important to remember that even if Jesus didn't exist, the whole concept of religion is not entirely far-fetched; while there are plenty of other one-off religions, such as the Roman Gods, Christianity shares it's roots with both the Muslim and Jewish religions as well. Surely three major religions that all essentially worship the same God can't have come from nothing.[/QUOTE] The roman gods shared roots with hundreds of polytheistic religions the world over for even longer than Christianity. What exactly makes you think that it's more logical to have one diety rather than several?
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19124211]There was no mention of a man named Jesus in any of the Muslim documents from the Romans. Jesus has no historical backing and the only documents of him were church controlled, he didnt exist.[/QUOTE] Muslims have only been around since the A.D. 600s. You act like Muslims have been in the region since before the Romans were, which is simply not true. Without further adieu... [QUOTE=DarkSpider;19124159]I thought it was pretty much known that he was a real person. Whether or not he was special, or just a nut case, is up to you.[/QUOTE]
I like Christmas. You get presents. And 16 days off of school. :saddowns:
[QUOTE=Jenkem;19126527]You act like Muslims have been in the region since before the Romans were, which is simply not true. [/QUOTE] Not at all, the Muslims saved tons of Roman documents from when Rome fell, as I stated without them we would have lost tons of information and its because of the Muslims I am able to say without a doubt that Jesus did not exist. [QUOTE=zeebiedeebie;19126563]I like Christmas. You get presents. And 16 days off of school. :saddowns:[/QUOTE] I get a month and thats the only good thing thats come from religion.
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19126609]Not at all, the Muslims saved tons of Roman documents from when Rome fell, as I stated without them we would have lost tons of information and its because of the Muslims I am able to say without a doubt that Jesus did not exist. [/QUOTE] You are trying to prove a religion doesn't exist due to the actions of another religion. You are putting faith in something you don't even believe in. How I laugh at the irony.
[QUOTE=David29;19126980]You are trying to prove a religion doesn't exist due to the actions of another religion. You are putting faith in something you don't even believe in. How I laugh at the irony.[/QUOTE] Im not putting faith in anything, Im using what history gives me to explain my point.
[QUOTE=Doug52392;19123886]Nazareth Sounds like a city out of a fantasy novel.[/QUOTE] What, like the bible? :v:
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;19126993]Im not putting faith in anything, Im using what history gives me to explain my point.[/QUOTE] Yes you are. You are putting faith in the idea that the Muslims retrieved everything recorded by the Romans.
[QUOTE=Re-Con;19124000]im not gonna celebrate it nor work I'm gonna sit on my arse and use my pc all day like I usually do[/QUOTE] Good luck getting a life.
[QUOTE=David29;19127050]Yes you are. You are putting faith in the idea that the Muslims retrieved everything recorded by the Romans.[/QUOTE] You dont seem to understand the amount of information they saved, they saved records of people who lived in Rome, historical documents of such value that without the Muslims we would have no knowledge of these events ever of happening. You would think a man who could walk on water and supposedly challenged the Roman empire would have been documented, but he wasnt so he didnt exist. There are no documents in the Roman archives mentioning Jesus.
The reason there are no Roman documents on Jesus is likely because to the Romans he was just another Jewish man, and thus did not see it as important enough to right about, or if they did right documents likely they have been lost or destroyed in time.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;19127102]The reason there are no Roman documents on Jesus is likely because to the Romans he was just another Jewish man, and thus did not see it as important enough to right about, or if they did right documents likely they have been lost or destroyed in time.[/QUOTE] Not only is this a valid point but you leave out that if you were to even consider using the Bible as a historical document you would notice that much of it is conflicting information on "historical" happenings which by default invalidates any historical meaning at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.