How do Atheists/Agnostics view Muhammad?

[MartialHorror]

Based on another thread, I decided to make a topic of this.

I often hear Atheists/Agnostics acknowledge Jesus was a good/great person, even though they dont believe he was the son of God.

So I was wondering, what do you guys think of Muhammad.

[Amaretti]

Based on another thread, I decided to make a topic of this.

I often hear Atheists/Agnostics acknowledge Jesus was a good/great person, even though they dont believe he was the son of God.

So I was wondering, what do you guys think of Muhammad.

Same as Jesus? Probably existed, probably a very charismatic spiritual leader, but whose divine connections are probably exaggerated. Neither good nor bad...

I don't get the point of your poll. :/

[maj1n]

Based on another thread, I decided to make a topic of this.

I often hear Atheists/Agnostics acknowledge Jesus was a good/great person, even though they dont believe he was the son of God.

So I was wondering, what do you guys think of Muhammad.
Speaking from experience, many Atheists consider the biblical Jesus to not have existed as he is in the Bible, he is probably based off something (whether a past historical person or various other myths) but there is so much myths attributed to him it is now impossible to get the 'real' Jesus, so to speak.

Muhammad is a bit more believable, theres still myths attributed to him that didn't happen, but he is closer to now, and the tales of him are more believable (they show more flaws).

Personally speaking, although i don't agree with everything the biblical jesus says and did, he is far more moral and humane then Muhammad, if i only had a choice between Christianity and Islam, i'd pick Christianity.

[Snow]

No choice for "Through 3D Goggles" ...?

Ah well.

I, as an agnostic, view him as a man that knew how to handle people. In other words: very charismatic. Kind of like Hitler if Nazism was a religious group instead of a fascist movement.

I believe he's more of a Moses than a Jesus- though admittedly I only know basic stuff.

[That NOS Guy]

Jesus is an entirely conflicted figure with me. While "love your neighbour as yourself" is a generally cool thing to say, refusing to heal a woman because she was a Jebusite smacks of racist treatment, and that's just a small example.

Mohammed was very charismatic individual who had some good points for the time like decrying female infanticide. Then again, he was a warlord, used religion as a convienent excuse, proclaimed himself as the best example we could ever follow, etc.

I think he's a douchebag.

[Robotkiller]

I think he was a charismatic warlord who was very good at manipulating his followers. He used religion as a rallying tool to take back land and territory. The fact that he supported slavery doesn't heighten himself in my favor either.

In short: Muhammad was a clever merchant, still a douche though.

[Tokoyami]

A manipulative fool. Perhaps some thing he did were good but that doesn't change the fact that alot of things he did sucked ass.

[Keile]

o_O.

I don't understand the question. You always imply that Atheists/Agnostics are weird, or that its hard to understand their views. I disagree. Its easy to understand that when something happens, you don't attribute it to the glory of the superior being. You simply go along as you normally would, and when you look towards the sky, you look for eternal optimism. Not from God, but from yourself.

Oh, and for the record, I view Muhammed as I view Jesus, another religious figure that I don't particularly care about. In fact, I don't even believe either of the two existed in the first place.

[The_Unforgiven]

I don't even believe either of the two existed in the first place.


Then how do you explain the grave in medina. How do you explain how the Quran was transmitted?

[Hwon]

Jesus and Muhammad are pretty much identical. Both probably existed. Their stories exaggerated. Religious text based on their messages and teachings forming long after their deaths. Both religious texts claim infallibility and to be the word of God.

[Tokyo Jihen]

Seeing as the question directed to atheists and agnostics, so i pick I'm not an atheist nor agnostic.

Of course, when you lead loads of war, you'd get the title warlord. But violence can be used for good.

But then again, "good", is subjective. If you're judging "good" in today's standard and society, than Muhammad should've led a different approach, considering his goals. But that's not the case here is it? So, I suggest, before you judge anyone, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Hitler, Bush, Bin Laden, anyone, put yourself in their position, consider the facts, the culture, the moral value of said time and place, and then you judge.

King David and Alexander the Great seemed to appeal less "bad" than Muhammad, but I wonder how are they different? Was it their cultures? Was it the wars they've led? Or was it something that we no longer concern to take into account, or lack thereto?

If you accord everything to today's standards, then everything yesterday could be wrong. Then what about tomorrow? Won't you stand for what you believe is right today and thus considered good today, not knowing tomorrow your actions will be considered as granting you the bottom pit of hell? Of course, we can only plan.

[Saufsoldat]

I don't think he was an evil guy running around killing non-muslims but since I am Atheist, I must assume that he made everything up about the angel telling him about the word of god and stuff. That makes him pretty much evil in my eyes.

I don't think I'd compare him to Jesus, I'd rather compare him to Joseph Smith, since their stories have a lot in common.

[The_Unforgiven]

Seeing as the question directed to atheists and agnostics, so i pick I'm not an atheist nor agnostic.

Of course, when you lead loads of war, you'd get the title warlord. But violence can be used for good.

But then again, "good", is subjective. If you're judging "good" in today's standard and society, than Muhammad should've led a different approach, considering his goals. But that's not the case here is it? So, I suggest, before you judge anyone, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Hitler, Bush, Bin Laden, anyone, put yourself in their position, consider the facts, the culture, the moral value of said time and place, and then you judge.

King David and Alexander the Great seemed to appeal less "bad" than Muhammad, but I wonder how are they different? Was it their cultures? Was it the wars they've led? Or was it something that we no longer concern to take into account, or lack thereto?

If you accord everything to today's standards, then everything yesterday could be wrong. Then what about tomorrow? Won't you stand for what you believe is right today and thus considered good today, not knowing tomorrow your actions will be considered as granting you the bottom pit of hell? Of course, we can only plan.

Quoted for wisdom.

[That NOS Guy]

Seeing as the question directed to atheists and agnostics, so i pick I'm not an atheist nor agnostic.

So, why post?


Of course, when you lead loads of war, you'd get the title warlord. But violence can be used for good.

Funny thing about "the religion of peace" eh?


But then again, "good", is subjective. If you're judging "good" in today's standard and society, than Muhammad should've led a different approach, considering his goals. But that's not the case here is it? So, I suggest, before you judge anyone, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Hitler, Bush, Bin Laden, anyone, put yourself in their position, consider the facts, the culture, the moral value of said time and place, and then you judge.

Okay. I'm a borderline suicidal nutcase who thinks that the supreme God of the universe is talking to me. I'm going to use religion to justify everything I do, even if it defies good sense. I'll then proclaim myself the most sterling example of mankind for all time.

Note the last part, I wouldn't be half as annoyed if Mohammed didn't have the balls to claim he was the most perfect human ever and the one who people were supposed to base their lives on. The sheer fact that Islam says that he's supposed to be examplified brings his actions under modern scrutiny, so the circlejerk about "it's the past!" doesn't help. Pretty much the same thing with Jesus and Buddha.


King David and Alexander the Great seemed to appeal less "bad" than Muhammad, but I wonder how are they different? Was it their cultures? Was it the wars they've led? Or was it something that we no longer concern to take into account, or lack thereto?

David was a monster. Alexander is a funny case, but the prime difference is seeing as he just failed in creating an extended cult of personality so thankfully ultimately his religious bullshit died with him.


If you accord everything to today's standards, then everything yesterday could be wrong. Then what about tomorrow? Won't you stand for what you believe is right today and thus considered good today, not knowing tomorrow your actions will be considered as granting you the bottom pit of hell? Of course, we can only plan.

The genocide of the American indians was wrong, even if it wasn't really protested at the time. It's easy to say such things, but burying atrocities in history doesn't lead anywhere except back to the start.

[Pilaf]

Based on another thread, I decided to make a topic of this.

I often hear Atheists/Agnostics acknowledge Jesus was a good/great person, even though they dont believe he was the son of God.

So I was wondering, what do you guys think of Muhammad.

I think he was a fanatical, superstitious right winger whose beliefs and policies have hurt the progress of science and cultural equality. I think Jesus was just as bad.

[Toby]

Well, seeing as he existed prior to the my most important philosophers, he does have an excuse for having such a strict patriarchal view about things. On the other hand, for believing in such a narrow-minded path he doesn't really improve according to my standards for a human being.

I understand Job on the other hand.

But as far as I am concerned, Muhammad was a prophet like many before him. Now, prophet does not mean good or bad, but a man speaking of events and values which have an independent system of values. Because they are not universally applicable, they easily lead to conflict. That is why people tend to think that nowadays prophets of doomsday are delusional. I think Mohammad wasn't delusional, but lacking in many qualities such as critical thinking.

So, I don't think he's crazy or anything, but inadequate for my profile of the better human being.

[The_Unforgiven]

I think he was a fanatical, superstitious right winger whose beliefs and policies have hurt the progress of science and cultural equality. I think Jesus was just as bad.


Read in this (http://www.science4islam.com/)website and tell me how much he has hurt science.

[That NOS Guy]

Read in this (http://www.science4islam.com/)website and tell me how much he has hurt science.

If science "leads" to Islam, why can't Islam adopt a scientific rational viewpoint about it's God? Religion by it's fundamental nature invariably is at odds with science.

[MartialHorror]

Pilaf: Jesus is just as bad? You have actually read the New Testament, right?

7th: Alexander the Great wasn't a founder of religion, which is why his criticisms are left.

To be clear to everyone else who responded, lets presume the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad are the same as they were in the Bible/Koran. You dont need to consider the so called miracles.

To those who say "They never existed", keep in mind most scholars/historians disagree with you.

[rawwr]

Jesus is an entirely conflicted figure with me. While "love your neighbour as yourself" is a generally cool thing to say, refusing to heal a woman because she was a Jebusite smacks of racist treatment, and that's just a small example.


I'm not familiar with the Jebusite woman he refused treatment. Anyone care to enlighten me? I know there was a woman's daughter that he didn't heal right away, but he still healed her after he asked the mother a question.

[T4R0K]

If science "leads" to Islam, why can't Islam adopt a scientific rational viewpoint about it's God? Religion by it's fundamental nature invariably is at odds with science.

Also, add the fact that real, honest scientists should always DOUBT or at least not take results as granted, and that theories can always be upset by newer facts. Stuff religions ask you not to do, because "dey gat teh trth lul !" And refuse to prove and/or demonstrate how (or they'll use ass old stories that have no chances of being proved true or not)

[Zhongda]

The cafe envoy is loosing in enemy territory! i request back up pronto!! (see sig)

[That NOS Guy]

I'm not familiar with the Jebusite woman he refused treatment. Anyone care to enlighten me? I know there was a woman's daughter that he didn't heal right away, but he still healed her after he asked the mother a question.

That's the story, Matthew 15:22 (NIV Version):

22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

He relents eventually, which is a point in his favor. That however does not fare well since he only relented after his comparision of the woman to a dog was accepted by the woman. He out and out states he's only there for the Jews, not on some worldwide mission. That's pretty racist if you ask me.

[Saufsoldat]

He relents eventually, which is a point in his favor. That however does not fare well since he only relented after his comparision of the woman to a dog was accepted by the woman. He out and out states he's only there for the Jews, not on some worldwide mission. That's pretty racist if you ask me.

It's not really racist. It's rather "faithist", since he discriminates people who are no Jews. But yes, this is a flaw in the whole "endless merci and love" story. If he really loves all humans equally, he would've healed her regardless of her faith.

[MartialHorror]

That's the story, Matthew 15:22 (NIV Version):

22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

He relents eventually, which is a point in his favor. That however does not fare well since he only relented after his comparision of the woman to a dog was accepted by the woman. He out and out states he's only there for the Jews, not on some worldwide mission. That's pretty racist if you ask me.

Props to you for taking this out of context so badly. He did not relent, he simply tested her for her faith. What is the Christian tenet, humble yourselves and make yourselves servants?


Also, you have to remember everyone who was familiar with the "Jewish Messiah" always generalized him as simply "king of the Jews"(Even the Romans called him that as a mockery). Hence, a gentile approaching him for a favor would have probably caught him off guard. If he really had a problem with it, he would have simply sent her away.

Proof of this is his disciples reactions, who quickly wanted him to send her away. Jesus was interested in her responce because it was uncharacteristic for a gentile to want something from the Jews.

Other verses and stories from the NT Jesus did not share the same superiority complex other Jews had.

What is with non-believers always taking stuff out of context and being uber selective in what stories they wish to use to support their claims?

[That NOS Guy]

It's not really racist. It's rather "faithist", since he discriminates people who are no Jews. But yes, this is a flaw in the whole "endless merci and love" story. If he really loves all humans equally, he would've healed her regardless of her faith.

I do suppose that can be a semantics debate, but it's long been established that Jews are their own ethnicity, therefore only catering to Jews is a racist bent.

Props to you for taking this out of context so badly. He did not relent, he simply tested her for her faith. What is the Christian tenet, humble yourselves and make yourselves servants?

Ah, so saying that he won't heal her daughter because she's part of the those unclean heathen tribes and comparing her to a dog is a test of faith? Splendid.


Also, you have to remember everyone who was familiar with the "Jewish Messiah" always generalized him as simply "king of the Jews"(Even the Romans called him that as a mockery). Hence, a gentile approaching him for a favor would have probably caught him off guard. If he really had a problem with it, he would have simply sent her away.

Jewish Messiahs were a dime a dozen in Jesus' day. The only thing that made him remarkable was St. Paul.

Call me crazy, but when I'm caught off guard by someone asking me a favor I don't refuse intially by saying that they're unfit to dine with me.


Proof of this is his disciples reactions, who quickly wanted him to send her away. Jesus was interested in her responce because it was uncharacteristic for a gentile to want something from the Jews.

Or he wanted to prove a point and eventually decided otherwise. I find this all very similiar to a white shopkeeper calling a black patron "nigger" as he comes up to the cash register. When the black person responds with the "I's simple Sambo" spiel he rings him up. Does that make him not racist?


Other verses and stories from the NT Jesus did not share the same superiority complex other Jews had.

So, are they still God's chosen people? Can't get much more of a superiority complex then that.


What is with non-believers always taking stuff out of context and being uber selective in what stories they wish to use to support their claims?

What is with Christians frantically backpedeling and throwing up smoke over the fact that their savior compared other people to dogs and refused them treatment based solely on race?

If I really wanted to go after you I could just talk about the sheer hypocrisy of "the prince of peace" slaughtering the non-believers in the Apoclypse, but this is just idle chit-chat.

[mr_shadow]

Assuming that Muhammed is the author of the Quran, he was an insightful man who saw the flaws in judaism/christianity, and had the guts to tell people to straighten the hell up. Or to quote Jesus: "I am not here to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I am here to enforce them further".

Yes, you heard me. If you read the Bible from beginning to end, without putting your own values into it, you'll notice that this God-person is not what modern people would consider "a good guy"*. Muhammeds interputation of the Tora and Bible fits alot better into the pattern established by the Law&Prophets than the modern interputed-to-death judaism or flower-power christianity.



* However, compared to other middle-eastern nations and their gods at the time, Israel/Arabia and their God come off as fairly humane by the time's standards

[Tokyo Jihen]

So, why post?

Why shouldn't I?

Funny thing about "the religion of peace" eh?

What's so funny? No seriously. Religion of peace, in which aspect? Do you expect peace in the middle of war? Because Islam does not forbid war entirely. There are exceptions.

Okay. I'm a borderline suicidal nutcase who thinks that the supreme God of the universe is talking to me. I'm going to use religion to justify everything I do, even if it defies good sense. I'll then proclaim myself the most sterling example of mankind for all time.

Note the last part, I wouldn't be half as annoyed if Mohammed didn't have the balls to claim he was the most perfect human ever and the one who people were supposed to base their lives on. The sheer fact that Islam says that he's supposed to be examplified brings his actions under modern scrutiny, so the circlejerk about "it's the past!" doesn't help. Pretty much the same thing with Jesus and Buddha.

If that's the only way you would perceive, hey, not my my obligation to put you in a different spot. I just voiced what i think people should do before they judge. It's not like I said people are obligated to praise him.

When did he claim to be "the most perfect human ever"? Personally, I don't see a problem with using him as example until today. It's not as ideal as Jesus, but it's more realistic.

David was a monster. Alexander is a funny case, but the prime difference is seeing as he just failed in creating an extended cult of personality so thankfully ultimately his religious bullshit died with him.

So, just because muhammad had his religion spread, he's worse than alexander now? Wow. Way to judge.

The genocide of the American indians was wrong, even if it wasn't really protested at the time. It's easy to say such things, but burying atrocities in history doesn't lead anywhere except back to the start.

I'm not american, so I'm not familiar with its history. But i can say you have to look why were the American Indians killed, ethnic cleansing is wrong, but that's not what muhammad was doing was he? True, it does not justify anything now, but that's just another reason we can't compare every single thing now and then using today's standard.

[Pilaf]

Pilaf: Jesus is just as bad? You have actually read the New Testament, right?


Six times.

It's painful rubbish to suffer through, but it's a powerful weapon for secularism. Revelation especially is hilariously cheesy and obviously drug induced.

[sadated_peon]

What's so funny? No seriously. Religion of peace, in which aspect? Do you expect peace in the middle of war? Because Islam does not forbid war entirely. There are exceptions.
There seem to have been an awful lot of exceptions throughout history.

[Toby]

Assuming that Muhammed is the author of the Quran, he was an insightful man who saw the flaws in judaism/christianity, and had the guts to tell people to straighten the hell up. Or to quote Jesus: "I am not here to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I am here to enforce them further".

Yes, you heard me. If you read the Bible from beginning to end, without putting your own values into it, you'll notice that this God-person is not what modern people would consider "a good guy"*. Muhammeds interputation of the Tora and Bible fits alot better into the pattern established by the Law&Prophets than the modern interputed-to-death judaism or flower-power christianity.

* However, compared to other middle-eastern nations and their gods at the time, Israel/Arabia and their God come off as fairly humane by the time's standards

Seriously, you just provided us with what could practically have been a first-hand historic source. Straight from the horse's mouth, but without your footnote, completely out of context of validation. You cannot stress a single of your points without the footnote, so there are no betters in your post; only a lesser evil.

What is your point then? I don't get it. Because Muhammad was slightly less inhumane, from your point of view, he is better? You see, admitting that the perspective itself is so skewed, I can't see what your point is if it is meant to clarify good guys from the bad guys. And even there I think a moral code isn't fit for evaluating a man who's values are clearly incompatible with the modern forms of ethics.


7th: Alexander the Great wasn't a founder of religion, which is why his criticisms are left.

So spreading Greek society and creating the Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule over the better part of Egypt and Sidon for the better half of the following century does not constitute spreading values? How, if I may ask, does conquering these people not bring Greek society's values and religion with it? You seem to avoid the point that there are still to this day found shrines in Turkey which are edifices for Zeus.

To your point, evaluating a conqueror such as Alexander is comparing a military victor to a prophet. It is like comparing an orator to a bully, only both had their bad sides. I myself think delusions of grandeur are fair enough to have in comparison to a lack of sympathy.


To be clear to everyone else who responded, lets presume the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad are the same as they were in the Bible/Koran. You dont need to consider the so called miracles.

To those who say "They never existed", keep in mind most scholars/historians disagree with you.

Ah, but that is addressing the historical favour with a slightly unjust principle. True, historians are fairly convinced that Jesus lived. But to stray from his miraculous deeds and clambering on to the argument that he lived does not constitute a point about their opinions of them - and seeing as this debate is about an evaluation of Muhammad, proving he existed should not be necessary. It is a matter of opinion and analysis from here-on.

There seem to have been an awful lot of exceptions throughout history.

QFT.

[maj1n]

Why shouldn't I?
What's so funny? No seriously. Religion of peace, in which aspect? Do you expect peace in the middle of war? Because Islam does not forbid war entirely. There are exceptions.

Yes, the exceptions is if the country or group you want to fight is non-Muslim, then you can wage war against them.

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:

'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)."
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

Oh but i suppose you are of that thinking that Islam was always defensive? lol.


If that's the only way you would perceive, hey, not my my obligation to put you in a different spot. I just voiced what i think people should do before they judge. It's not like I said people are obligated to praise him.

The idea of 'relative morality' has merits, but in this case, 'war' and such, no, it would not work.

No particular social group in history thought 'war' was inherently 'normal' and therefore 'ok', every social group considered 'war' justified only when fighting legitimate targets, even extending to today, obvious by the fact social groups don't advocate warring themselves, unfortunately 'legitimate targets' usually becomes whoever you want to conquer.


When did he claim to be "the most perfect human ever"? Personally, I don't see a problem with using him as example until today. It's not as ideal as Jesus, but it's more realistic.

Islam claims it.


So, just because muhammad had his religion spread, he's worse than alexander now? Wow. Way to judge.

If by the rationale that 'one is responsible at least in part by the results of ones actions' then he would have much to answer for.


I'm not american, so I'm not familiar with its history. But i can say you have to look why were the American Indians killed, ethnic cleansing is wrong, but that's not what muhammad was doing was he? True, it does not justify anything now, but that's just another reason we can't compare every single thing now and then using today's standard.
Muhammad was trying to kill or conquer everyone not of his religion, it is really on such a grand scale that ethnic cleansing and that would be basically the same.

As to Muhammads warring, indeed what he did was wrong, and i definitely can judge him on today's standards, for we 'know' that most humans are equal (in terms of having the potential to achieve what any other ethnic group could).

But your line of thinking is ABSURDLY illogical, your trying to argue that 'warring' was an acceptable state back then, and so him warring is of less evil as it is today, i'm sorry thats stupid, if warring was 'normal' then absolutely no one back then would complain about it, even if someone warred against ones own people.

But people did care back then, treaties were made (as evidenced from the Qur'an) which is a sure attempt at keeping the peace, therefore war was definitely NOT considered ok inherently back then, it is the reasons for war that are considered.

[The_Unforgiven]

Dude you just realised you just quoted 7th's words with my name. Concentrate a little, pls.

[Momochi Zabuza]

I don't think of him at all, really. :/ Just like with other belief systems that deviate from my own (Christianity, Judaism, etc.), I try to gain as much knowledge as I can on the subject, but otherwise don't give it much thought. ^^

[maj1n]

Dude you just realised you just quoted 7th's words with my name. Concentrate a little, pls.
Ooops sorry lol, still had your name on my copy and paste from the other thread.

[MartialHorror]

I do suppose that can be a semantics debate, but it's long been established that Jews are their own ethnicity, therefore only catering to Jews is a racist bent.



Ah, so saying that he won't heal her daughter because she's part of the those unclean heathen tribes and comparing her to a dog is a test of faith? Splendid.



Jewish Messiahs were a dime a dozen in Jesus' day. The only thing that made him remarkable was St. Paul.

Call me crazy, but when I'm caught off guard by someone asking me a favor I don't refuse intially by saying that they're unfit to dine with me.



Or he wanted to prove a point and eventually decided otherwise. I find this all very similiar to a white shopkeeper calling a black patron "nigger" as he comes up to the cash register. When the black person responds with the "I's simple Sambo" spiel he rings him up. Does that make him not racist?



So, are they still God's chosen people? Can't get much more of a superiority complex then that.



What is with Christians frantically backpedeling and throwing up smoke over the fact that their savior compared other people to dogs and refused them treatment based solely on race?

If I really wanted to go after you I could just talk about the sheer hypocrisy of "the prince of peace" slaughtering the non-believers in the Apoclypse, but this is just idle chit-chat.

1) Except you don't have to be born Jewish to be a jew.

2) Once again, he was using a typical Jewish answer to see her responce.

3) You are ignoring the fact he DID cure her. But I do agree there were many claimed messiahs.

4) Once again, you ignore every other story dealing with Jesus and non-Jews.

5) Yes, I believe they are Gods chosen people, I simply think they overrate the term.

6) Because non-believers like to be even more selective in what they use than Christians and take things out of context.

Pilaf: Saying you've read it 6 times when you clearly know little about it does not say much.

[Anarchy]

I view Muhammad, Jesus, Buddah..ect all the same. Guys who had a message that would hopefully make the world and people a little better. But like with all good ideas, if you get enough people together, they can fuck it up. there are tons of people are opressing, fighting and killing one another, making outrageous claims, and basicly acting exactly like people who lived thousands of years ago and believed an eclipse ment the sun was mad at us.

[Valtieri]

He wanted to much power and control, and as a result he wanted to play god = asshole, but people have their beliefs and i respect that but still i didn't like what he came off as

[Goodfellow]

Jesus was okay. But I think Ghandi was a lot more impressive. A lot more.
And Siddharta Guatama's insights of karma is also very fascinating. And I find the general buddhist principles to be quite smart, if maybe not the specifics.

What goes for Muhammed, well, I suppose he was quite openminded. He actually made the women's situation better I've understood.
But mostly I view him just like another historical character that greatly influenced the world.

[makeoutparadise]

He was a man trying to send a message of love and peace Just like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and Vash the Stampede :nod

[That NOS Guy]

1) Except you don't have to be born Jewish to be a jew.

Heh, try telling that to people of mixed descent of the time. They were 2nd class among 2nd class.


2) Once again, he was using a typical Jewish answer to see her responce.

What if she responded that since she's a human being he should heal her daughter? If she didn't prostrate herself, would he have healed her daughter?


3) You are ignoring the fact he DID cure her. But I do agree there were many claimed messiahs.

....go back to the shopkeeper example, review that, get back to me.


4) Once again, you ignore every other story dealing with Jesus and non-Jews.

Like what? The Roman Centurion?


5) Yes, I believe they are Gods chosen people, I simply think they overrate the term.

What does that make Christians then?


6) Because non-believers like to be even more selective in what they use than Christians and take things out of context.

Why is it that the default answer always "you're being selective" or "you're taking it out of context" with you people? If Jesus didn't display vibrant racist tendencies in this story would wouldn't have anything to out.

Jesus fucking Christ, if the man is contradictory in his approach to non-Jews don't you realize what a theological whopper of an issue that is?

It only takes one time to be pegged as a racist, look at Michael Richards.

[That NOS Guy]

Why shouldn't I?

Are you an atheist or agnostic?


What's so funny? No seriously. Religion of peace, in which aspect? Do you expect peace in the middle of war? Because Islam does not forbid war entirely. There are exceptions.

As Sedated Peon so wholly pointed out, there's been quite a few exceptions. Espeically of the offensive variety.


If that's the only way you would perceive, hey, not my my obligation to put you in a different spot. I just voiced what i think people should do before they judge. It's not like I said people are obligated to praise him.

So, what's wrong with my empathetic placement? Nothing? Alright.


When did he claim to be "the most perfect human ever"? Personally, I don't see a problem with using him as example until today. It's not as ideal as Jesus, but it's more realistic.

Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.

One would presume that since the Koran mentions no one else in such light that Mohammed has a special place for conduct. Indeed, why would the supreme God of the universe come to anyone else but the best example for all humanity to follow?

Why until today anyway? What magical cutoff date happened? Did God's word expire?


So, just because muhammad had his religion spread, he's worse than alexander now? Wow. Way to judge.

Alexander's cult didn't survive past his death, so he can be viewed much more favorably. Especially since Mohammed's cult has lead to more then a fair share of suffering.


I'm not american, so I'm not familiar with its history. But i can say you have to look why were the American Indians killed, ethnic cleansing is wrong, but that's not what muhammad was doing was he? True, it does not justify anything now, but that's just another reason we can't compare every single thing now and then using today's standard.

Find me a Jew, Pagan, or Christian in Arabia at the time of Mohammed's death. Oh wait, you can't. Why? What was his final wish? Look into it, I'm sure you'll find it fitting the description of "ethnic cleansing" rather nicely.

[vervex]

Muhammad was a man like another. He invented Islam which is, to me, only a remix of the Bible with more laws and restrictions. What I don't like about his manners is that he forced his beliefs upon the people, threatening them with a war if the they didn't convert to Islam. Maybe some people won't like me to say this, but it reflects very well the current Islamic mentality, which didn't change in 1400 years. A reality that is quite sad, if you want my opinion.

As for Muhammad alone, I think he was just an opportunist. He somewhat succeeded, but he has no real value to my eyes.

[Toby]

Jesus was okay. But I think Ghandi was a lot more impressive. A lot more.
And Siddharta Guatama's insights of karma is also very fascinating. And I find the general buddhist principles to be quite smart, if maybe not the specifics.


QUE?

The man who did not invent pacifism but who is repeatedly credited for it, and who is also credited for being respectful to people of all nationalities but was in truth a racist?

He learned pacifism and became a man who opposed the British Empire. A great achievement. A man more impressive than Muhammad? Possibly, but not a better person. I know you didn't say that, but people who read about Gandhi don't always find out about his true inspiration, Leo Tolstoy, author of 'The Kingdom of God is Within You'. It was actually from that book that he learned about pacifism.

I am sorry, but whenever people raise 'the Gandhi was a better person than you' card and try to play music with it, I tend to scream.

Look closer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-QK35hYIWo)

[Tokyo Jihen]

Are you an atheist or agnostic?

Well, did I answer the question asked? Or did I simply post and not answer the question?

As Sedated Peon so wholly pointed out, there's been quite a few exceptions. Espeically of the offensive variety.

Alright. Give me example, because honestly, I've yet to start studying Muhammad. I studied Islam, specifically the tawheed.

So, what's wrong with my empathetic placement? Nothing? Alright.

Bias perhaps. (Anchoring, a cognitive bias...look it up.)

Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.

May I point out that this verse did not say "the most perfect" as you put it, but the word is excellent. Not "most excellent". So, clearly there has been at least one that outdo Muhammad's excellencies.

One would presume that since the Koran mentions no one else in such light that Mohammed has a special place for conduct. Indeed, why would the supreme God of the universe come to anyone else but the best example for all humanity to follow?

Behold! the angels said: 'O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations.'" [3:4]

O Moses! I have chosen you in preferrence to others, and entrusted you with the mission to convey My words as contained in My revelations to all the people around, and to join the ranks of these who are grateful to Me. [7:144]

2:136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).

Well, there is virgin Mary, Moses, Abraham...quite a few name.

Why until today anyway? What magical cutoff date happened? Did God's word expire?

You missed me. I meant I could live by Muhammad's standard at any given time. Does that mean i have to?

When he led wars, does that mean i have to lead wars?
When he made treaty, does that mean i have to make treaty?

Certainly not.

Alexander's cult didn't survive past his death, so he can be viewed much more favorably. Especially since Mohammed's cult has lead to more then a fair share of suffering.

Ahh...I see. Glad to know your opinion.

Find me a Jew, Pagan, or Christian in Arabia at the time of Mohammed's death. Oh wait, you can't. Why? What was his final wish? Look into it, I'm sure you'll find it fitting the description of "ethnic cleansing" rather nicely.

I'm sorry, I couldn't because I'm not there yet. But, just in case, were you referring to his last sermon (http://www.iman.co.nz/index.htm?innerpage_ed.htm?ed/lastsermon.htm) The Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him)
Last Sermon
This Sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul Hijjah 10 A.H. in the Uranah valley of Mount Arafat

The Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) Last Sermon

"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether, after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligations shall henceforth be waived.

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion: He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to commit adultery.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers, fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. You are all equal. Nobody has superiority over another except by piety and good action.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers, fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. You are all equal. Nobody has superiority over another except by piety and good action.

Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

O People, NO PROPHET OF APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O people, and understand my words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QUR'AN and my example the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness O ALLAH, that I have conveyed your message to your people."

or the words he said before he died. The Prophet’s last words were “O Allah, with the supreme communion.” He died in the evening of the twelfth of Rabi’ al-Awwal (June 8, 632 A.D.) at the age of sixty-three.

None of both points in your accusation.

[maj1n]

Alright. Give me example, because honestly, I've yet to start studying Muhammad. I studied Islam, specifically the tawheed.


Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:

'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)."
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

Just one example.

If you even studied Muhammads life, you will find even at the very beginning, he was offensive, he raided Meccan caravans and killed its guards, stole its merchandise.

[Saufsoldat]

The poll is messed up already :/

I somehow don't believe that there are only 3 theists here.

[The_Unforgiven]

If you even studied Muhammads life, you will find even at the very beginning, he was offensive, he raided Meccan caravans and killed its guards, stole its merchandise.

But didn't the people of mecca take his money and his companion's money and houses when he left mecca?

[AbnormallyNormal]

it probably depends on which atheist/agnostic you ask obviously, there is no single uniform opinion, unlike religious nutcases, we atheist/agnositics dont force one another to share oppinions on everything, personallyi think he was an insane nutball but living in desert in 600 a.d. thats not so hard to imagine

[Link]

First, I don't believe in the normal conception of god. I do believe in an entity, that is so far removed from being a singular, self-conscious being that it can't be called a god without being misleading.
Am I an atheist?

[PDQ]

it probably depends on which atheist/agnostic you ask obviously, there is no single uniform opinion, unlike religious nutcases, we atheist/agnositics dont force one another to share oppinions on everything, personallyi think he was an insane nutball but living in desert in 600 a.d. thats not so hard to imagine
Exactly, there's no official opinion, nor can there be an official stance. Atheism and agnosticism are not sets of beliefs, they both simply lacks of a single belief. Anything beyond that extends beyond the domain of the terms into personal opinion.

It's what mathematicians would call a type mismatch/error

[Tokyo Jihen]

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:

'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)."
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

Just one example.

If you even studied Muhammads life, you will find even at the very beginning, he was offensive, he raided Meccan caravans and killed its guards, stole its merchandise.

Seems you have been using this particular hadith for quite sometime now it seems, then I'll ask you something. These are real questions, not Socratic or trap, whatever, just questions.

1. When was this "hadith" said, was it during Muhammad's life, or after he's dead?
2. Who said that "hadith", Muhammad or his companions?
3. What do you think the differences between Shia and Sunni, why are there these differences?

Now, maybe some will say I'm out of line for a Muslim, but I so far have yet a good reason to consider what his companions would say since God did not spoke to them. They have made mistakes during the life of the prophet, and I don't see what's stopping them post-Muhammad's death. I'm not saying my words outwit the scholars, but this hadith did not reflect on Muhammad accordingly, because this goes against the Qur'an where in Sura 2 there's a verse that say Muslims are not to start violence. So, with this uneducated opinion on this issue, I have nothing further to say.

[maj1n]

1. When was this "hadith" said, was it during Muhammad's life, or after he's dead?

Most likely shortly after he died, Umar was the 2nd Caliph, after Abu Bakr, and it notes here he 'gave' the orders to Muslims, which implies it done when he was a Caliph, though it very possibly could have been done when he was stilla companion of Muhammad.


2. Who said that "hadith", Muhammad or his companions?

No hadith has Muhammad relating it, hadiths are companions relating what Muhammad said.


3. What do you think the differences between Shia and Sunni, why are there these differences?

Political, the differences stem from the rightful 'heir' to being the ruler of the Muslim empire, after Muhammad died there was dispute, as always happens.


Now, maybe some will say I'm out of line for a Muslim, but I so far have yet a good reason to consider what his companions would say since God did not spoke to them. They have made mistakes during the life of the prophet, and I don't see what's stopping them post-Muhammad's death. I'm not saying my words outwit the scholars, but this hadith did not reflect on Muhammad accordingly, because this goes against the Qur'an where in Sura 2 there's a verse that say Muslims are not to start violence. So, with this uneducated opinion on this issue, I have nothing further to say.
Just about everything in Islam falls from the Hadith, the 7 pillars are explicitly told in the Hadith and NOT the Qur'an, apostasy etc.

edit: different pillars for different sects.

As to why? ever been in court? know what a witness is?

Btw, this does not go against the Qur'an, it actually confirms the Qur'an.

9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
...
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the
poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
...
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the Jizya readily, being brought low.


You don't really seem informed of Islamic history, at the very beginning, Muhammad was defensive, because he could not afford to anger anyone, he had little followers, as he gained power, he became militant, and aggressive, till he launched all out war against any non-Muslim.


But didn't the people of mecca take his money and his companion's money and houses when he left mecca?

No, he was expelled for (according to Muslims so one must be skeptical) creating a disturbance for preaching his religion, his companions themselves were also expelled, their families however were allowed to live in the town, and with their property, as the Hadiths relate that the early Muslims expelled were allowed to go back and get their family.

[Black Wraith]

one point.


Just about everything in Islam falls from the Hadith, the 7 pillarsare explicitly told in the Hadith and NOT the Qur'an, apostasy etc.

Learn the basics of Islam before you start to complain about it

[The_Unforgiven]

No, he was expelled for (according to Muslims so one must be skeptical) creating a disturbance for preaching his religion, his companions themselves were also expelled, their families however were allowed to live in the town, and with their property, as the Hadiths relate that the early Muslims expelled were allowed to go back and get their family

Why do you lie? Seriously, why? If he was "expelled" why would they send an expedition after him to bring him back? Why would they offer the one who brings him back a reward of 1000 camels?

And suppose they "expelled" him, wouldn't that be stupid? They would be allowing him to preach to other people who might convert. This proves that you don't know shit about islam, and all you know is a limited amount of verses/ hadiths that have been taught to you by biased people that tell you to keep repeating them to win debates.

[Hunted by sister]

I wanna "i don`t care" option ;(

[sadated_peon]

one point.

Learn the basics of Islam before you start to complain about it

lol,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Pillars_of_Islam_(Ismaili)
"Shi'a Ismaili Seven Pillars of Islam, including the Nizari, Druze, and Mustaali have three doctrines that are not included in the Sunni Five Pillars of Islam: Walayah, Taharah and Jihad. This would raise the total to eight, but the Bohra Ismailis do not include Shahadah, lowering it to seven."

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-16.htm
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html

and you are criticizing Maj1ns knowledge?!?!?!

[Black Wraith]

Majority view is 5. If you don't refer to the majority then you must state what you are refering to.

[The_Unforgiven]

Plus, you are talking to sunnis here, and so we can come back and say, "So what?"

[sadated_peon]

Majority view is 5. If you don't refer to the majority then you must state what you are refering to.
BS, just because it was not part of your sect of Islam in no way invalidates it.

Plus, you are talking to sunnis here, and so we can come back and say, "So what?"
He is talking about the Hadiths, you do follow at least one hadith don't you?

[Saufsoldat]

BS, just because it was not part of your sect of Islam in no way invalidates it.

Firstly, it's called branch, not sect.

Secondly, you can't just generalize from one branch to the whole religion. That'd be like saying every christian is into polygamy just because the mor(m)ons are.

[maj1n]

It seems the Muslims on this board have little knowledge of their own religion (actually quite a common phenomenon).

Reliability of evidence of Muhammad
Extremely unreliable,ideally claims made by a person (as in all the Hadith) of something requires validation either from someone else externally (multiple eyewitnesses basically) or through physical inspection (archaeology).

The Hadith has none, we also must note that during the succession wars (rightful establishment of Calipha), MANY people forged Hadiths to solidify both their ruling and their pronouncements of laws.

But that is the best we have, so we have to examine it.

Common myths
Quraiysh Persecution
Many Muslims claim that Muhammad was persecuted by the Quraiysh (in mecca) and had to leave.

Was there persecution? and to what extent?

Extremely few reliable evidence of this, what we do know is that the Quraiysh asked Al Tabari to reign in Muhammad as apparently he was slandering their Gods, and that apparently Muhammad had dreams of conquering much of Arabia even then.

"The Coreish, hearing that Abu Talib lay at the point of death, sent a deputation in order that some contact should be made to bind both parties, after his decease should have removed all restraint upon Mahomet. They proposed accordingly that they should retain their ancient faith, and that Mahomet should promise to refrain from abuse or interference; in which case they on their part would agree not to molest him in his faith. Abu Talib called Mahomet, and communicated to him the reasonable request. Mahomet replied " Nay, but there is one word, which if ye concede, you will thereby conquer Arabia, and reduce Ajam under subjection."
-Life of Muhammad

It seems from here there was equal abuse, Muhammad apparently slandered them, and they slandered him back, although it is notable Muhammad refused this peaceful agreement.

muslims forced to leave Mecca, by the Quraish? no Muhammad
Very interesting thing here, it, in fact, was not the Quraiysh that made the Muslims leave, but Muhammad, he even threatened to kill them.

Remnants of this is seen in the Qur'an

“Lo! those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them: these are protecting friends one of another. And those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes; but if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help (them) except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty. Allah is Seer of what ye do.”
-8:72

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them
-4:89

We can see here that Muhammad did not like it that Muslims did not leave with him, at the end he even said that those who left and then turned back to go back were to be killed.

[The_Unforgiven]

He is talking about the Hadiths, you do follow at least one hadith don't you?

the hadith says: " Buniya al islamu ala khams. Shahadat an la ilaha ill allah wa anna muhammad abduhu wa rasuluh, wa iqam al salat, wa eeta al zakat, wa hajj al bait liman istata'a ilaihi sabeela, wa sawm ramadan"

Translated to: Islam was built on five (pilars). The declaration that there is no deity but allah, and that Mohammad is his slave and messenger, and upholding of the prayers, and giving zakat, and pilgrimage to whoever can afford to, and fasting during ramadan.

[Tokyo Jihen]

Most likely shortly after he died, Umar was the 2nd Caliph, after Abu Bakr, and it notes here he 'gave' the orders to Muslims, which implies it done when he was a Caliph, though it very possibly could have been done when he was stilla companion of Muhammad.

Do you know what is the title of this said person? If and when you do, can you tell what type of person he is? Did Abu Bakr did the same thing?

No hadith has Muhammad relating it, hadiths are companions relating what Muhammad said.

Did Muhammad ever do such thing as Umar did in this particular hadith?

Political, the differences stem from the rightful 'heir' to being the ruler of the Muslim empire, after Muhammad died there was dispute, as always happens.

Also, they differ about hadith narration.

Just about everything in Islam falls from the Hadith, the 7 pillars are explicitly told in the Hadith and NOT the Qur'an, apostasy etc.

edit: different pillars for different sects.

But if you refer to the Sunni's pillar, you can find it in the Qur'an.

As to why? ever been in court? know what a witness is?

I do know what a witness is. But what does this have anything to do with again?

Btw, this does not go against the Qur'an, it actually confirms the Qur'an.

9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
...
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the
poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
...
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the Jizya readily, being brought low.

Of course. But you missed this:

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)

If they don't fight, then we can't fight, can we? If we make a list of points out of these verses, this particular verse i point will hold much weight over the others, don't you agree?

Example:

1. Eat all you can.
2. Eat all that are legal.
3. Eat whenever you have a chance.
4. Eat only if you're given permission to eat.

Now, even at number 4, clearly i cannot abide to the previous three had the 4th statement is not true in the situation, yes?

You don't really seem informed of Islamic history, at the very beginning, Muhammad was defensive, because he could not afford to anger anyone, he had little followers, as he gained power, he became militant, and aggressive, till he launched all out war against any non-Muslim.

I'm not that uninformed. It's just there are things I've learned as a kid, which I think needs present verification. You have to understand, the Arab tribes at the time of muhammad, only listen if they lose in a war, which the situation is a lot different now. They killed female infant out of traditions. How vile is that?

Now, there are 300+ tribes, and that means even fighting a quarter of that amount can make you more than qualified to be called warlord. Having won so much wars, of course this puts much anxiety to the other leaders. Of course, had the other tribes just listen to what muhammad wanted to say, no war was needed. And other empire might have different view towards muhammad. Highly likely they will peacefully or put on less resistant like some leaders did, let muhammad into their country.

These, are the situations I meant, that needed not rocket science brain to figure. Feel free to form your opinion towards him. But please, don't ruin all your other seem-smart posts over misinformation and biases like this.

Of course, if there was no war, than I bet all muslims had over retaliate like the crusade. Won't be happier is it with such as history?

[maj1n]

Why do you lie? Seriously, why? If he was "expelled" why would they send an expedition after him to bring him back? Why would they offer the one who brings him back a reward of 1000 camels?

And suppose they "expelled" him, wouldn't that be stupid? They would be allowing him to preach to other people who might convert. This proves that you don't know shit about islam, and all you know is a limited amount of verses/ hadiths that have been taught to you by biased people that tell you to keep repeating them to win debates.
According to the evidence Hammodi, the Quraiysh would have tolerated his preaching so long as he stopped slandering THEIR Gods.

"The Coreish, hearing that Abu Talib lay at the point of death, sent a deputation in order that some contact should be made to bind both parties, after his decease should have removed all restraint upon Mahomet. They proposed accordingly that they should retain their ancient faith, and that Mahomet should promise to refrain from abuse or interference; in which case they on their part would agree not to molest him in his faith. Abu Talib called Mahomet, and communicated to him the reasonable request. Mahomet replied " Nay, but there is one word, which if ye concede, you will thereby conquer Arabia, and reduce Ajam under subjection."
-Life of Muhammad

Note that muhammad in fact rejected this peaceful reconciliation.


Firstly, it's called branch, not sect.

Secondly, you can't just generalize from one branch to the whole religion. That'd be like saying every christian is into polygamy just because the mor(m)ons are.

No, a sect is a splitting off from a larger group, you can view Sunni and Shia as a sect of the once united Islam under Muhammad.

You can also view it as a branch.

Secondly, it would mean Black_Fenix is wrong in saying.


Majority view is 5. If you don't refer to the majority then you must state what you are refering to.

Since Sunni is a branch/sect.

As Sadated pointed out, different branch/sects have different pillars, i didn't go in-depth in it because i was only using the pillars as an example that much of Islam is in the Hadith, not the Qur'an.

I am amused though that the Muslims on this board always swear at me when i have to educate them, frustration from being educated about their own religion from a non-Muslim i suppose.

[Outlandish]

your not educating anyone all you do is take certain verses out of context and use them in your arguments. Maybe you should take the time to actually read the verses instead of posting them again and again and again and again. Really you sound like a broken record.

[Tokyo Jihen]

This is why, maj1n, I never did bother much to entertain you. You are placing judgment to us, knowing us not that well, but when we said something that seemed as uninformed, you took us for idiots, when on the other hand, you're the one remaining oblivious and ignorant of what people have been pointing at you.

We never claimed we know it all. But we try as much as we can to respond, and so far, i think know we did. If you're so dissatisfied with any of our answers, or anyone of us for that matter, then why did you keep on asking? No seriously, if you took us for idiots, then aren't you at least as stupid to keep entertaining us?

You indeed are using straw man.

[maj1n]

Do you know what is the title of this said person? If and when you do, can you tell what type of person he is? Did Abu Bakr did the same thing?

Abu Bakr launched an attack on apostates, called the 'Apostate wars' i have provided hadiths on that before, if you want i can get it again (but im going to sleep now).

Suffice to say that Abu bakr slaughtered ex-Muslims AND (and this is very interesting) he once invaded a town to kill ex-Muslims, that had ex-Muslims, Muslims and Christians living peacefully together (important point against your case and the common belief that arabia back then was warlike).


Did Muhammad ever do such thing as Umar did in this particular hadith?

Yes, he was the one who said.

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


Also, they differ about hadith narration.

Correct, but this also stems from the denial of who was the successor.


But if you refer to the Sunni's pillar, you can find it in the Qur'an.

It is not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an as the 5 pillars, that is a later invention in the hadith.


I do know what a witness is. But what does this have anything to do with again?

Well it is true that the Hadiths are unreliable, i prefer to argue it on this viewpoint 'this is what Islam believes happened', i personally don't hold much stock on alot of the hadiths.


Of course. But you missed this:

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)

If they don't fight, then we can't fight, can we? If we make a list of points out of these verses, this particular verse i point will hold much weight over the others, don't you agree?

Sigh.

No 7th_Revenant

Now listen, in Islam, rulings changed over time (even Hamoodi_19 can agree with this since there is the commonly cited example of wine being slowly banned in successive stages).

The latest orders by Muhammad hold greater weight then any other.

Now please read the verses carefully.

9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
...
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Just from this, it shows that peaceful treaties were abolished and you can kill pagans.

You cannot rectify this with your verses 7th_Revenant, by logic, these two verses above establish the Muslims as the agressors, for if one voids peaceful treaties to kill, that is aggression.

Now, of course i have the Tafsir with me to explain it

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed.


I'm not that uninformed. It's just there are things I've learned as a kid, which I think needs present verification. You have to understand, the Arab tribes at the time of muhammad, only listen if they lose in a war, which the situation is a lot different now. They killed female infant out of traditions. How vile is that?

No 7th_Revenant, perhaps some tribes did it, not all did it.

And no, you are dead wrong, just look at the above verses in the Quran, treaties existed back then

This alone means that most tribes back then actually wanted peace, not war.


Now, there are 300+ tribes, and that means even fighting a quarter of that amount can make you more than qualified to be called warlord. Having won so much wars, of course this puts much anxiety to the other leaders. Of course, had the other tribes just listen to what muhammad wanted to say, no war was needed. And other empire might have different view towards muhammad. Highly likely they will peacefully or put on less resistant like some leaders did, let muhammad into their country.

These, are the situations I meant, that needed not rocket science brain to figure. Feel free to form your opinion towards him. But please, don't ruin all your other seem-smart posts over misinformation and biases like this.

Of course, if there was no war, than I bet all muslims had over retaliate like the crusade. Won't be happier is it with such as history?
I would advise you to research the evidence, here is a list of lies.

1.War was common back then (no, it was not, the existence of treaties disproves this)

2.All Islamic battles were self-defense (no, they were not, the battle of Badr was started BECAUSE Muslims kept raiding the mecca caravans, you might also like to read the Hadith i kept giving to you).

Just a bit of advice, as something as controversial, political, and important as religion is, it would be incredibly stupid to just 'trust' what people have told you (such as your Imams, your parents, your teachers etc).


This is why, maj1n, I never did bother much to entertain you. You are placing judgment to us, knowing us not that well, but when we said something that seemed as uninformed, you took us for idiots, when on the other hand, you're the one remaining oblivious and ignorant of what people have been pointing at you.

Where did i take you as idiots? i believe i am right just as you believe you are right, as i believe i am right, when i tell you where i think you are wrong, i believe i am educating you on what is right.

The same holds for you trying to tell me when i am wrong.


We never claimed we know it all. But we try as much as we can to respond, and so far, i think know we did. If you're so dissatisfied with any of our answers, or anyone of us for that matter, then why did you keep on asking? No seriously, if you took us for idiots, then aren't you at least as stupid to keep entertaining us?

Where did i take you as idiots?

I didn't even say that in the post you quoted, furthermore i am amazed you would defend this kind of behaviour.


And suppose they "expelled" him, wouldn't that be stupid? They would be allowing him to preach to other people who might convert. This proves that you don't know shit about islam, and all you know is a limited amount of verses/ hadiths that have been taught to you by biased people that tell you to keep repeating them to win debates.

But i can understand, he is a Muslim, you are a Muslim, so you must band together against me, since i do disagree with you on many things.

Such as, for instance, it is justifiable that ex-Muslims should be killed, which i find deplorable that you, Black_fenix and Hamoodi support.

[sadated_peon]

Firstly, it's called branch, not sect.
Sect,
b : a religious denomination
m-w.com

1.a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.
Dictionary.com


Sunni– wikipedia
Sunni Muslims are the largest denomination of Islam.

Secondly, you can't just generalize from one branch to the whole religion. That'd be like saying every christian is into polygamy just because the mor(m)ons are.
I didn’t say that EVERYONE in islam believe in the 7 pillars, but saying 7 pillars is as valid as saying 5 pillars in this example because it is a religious dogma based on hadith.

It was Black Fenix who rejected 7 pillars as being invalid because they were not a part of his sect of Islam.

the hadith says: " Buniya al islamu ala khams. Shahadat an la ilaha ill allah wa anna muhammad abduhu wa rasuluh, wa iqam al salat, wa eeta al zakat, wa hajj al bait liman istata'a ilaihi sabeela, wa sawm ramadan"

Translated to: Islam was built on five (pilars). The declaration that there is no deity but allah, and that Mohammad is his slave and messenger, and upholding of the prayers, and giving zakat, and pilgrimage to whoever can afford to, and fasting during ramadan.
So it seems you have missed my point.

Maj1n said that the 7 pillars came from a hadith, not directly form the Quran, saying that you believe in 5 does not counter this, you are still getting it from the hadith.

By quoting the hadith where is says 5 pillars you are proving the point.

[Zhongda]

mmm this is why i neal more to being a quran only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_only) Muslim.

[Goodfellow]

QUE?

The man who did not invent pacifism but who is repeatedly credited for it, and who is also credited for being respectful to people of all nationalities but was in truth a racist?

He learned pacifism and became a man who opposed the British Empire. A great achievement. A man more impressive than Muhammad? Possibly, but not a better person. I know you didn't say that, but people who read about Gandhi don't always find out about his true inspiration, Leo Tolstoy, author of 'The Kingdom of God is Within You'. It was actually from that book that he learned about pacifism.

I am sorry, but whenever people raise 'the Gandhi was a better person than you' card and try to play music with it, I tend to scream.

Look closer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-QK35hYIWo)


I'm fully aware that Ghandi didn't really invent anything.But that doesn't really bother me. And no I don't care if he had sex with young women. Heck, I would have done the same <.<;;.

Heck, when I compare the two, there are quite a few similarities I think (superficial ones, but enough for me to compare Ghandi with Jesus). The reason why I respect Ghandi more that Jesus really is because of the lengh he went to keep the revolt against the brittish commonwealth peaceful, while at the same time being effective.

The rascism part was quite funny in that video though:lmao
And in general, that video was very interesting. A great find and I learned something new today^^

(now, let me clarify. I view neither Jesus nor Ghandi nor Buddha nor Muhammed as some kind of mythical saints or anything. I just try to objectivly assert (Yeah right, I'm subjective as hell) their effect on the flows of history. And regardless of Ghandi's sexual appetite, rascistic leanings and etc, he was one of the people who truely pushed forward civil disobeying through noneviolence. And that's mighty impressive in my book.
I don't respect him because he was a nice person or anything. How could I? I've never meet the man.

All jesus did was to create yet another religion. And that's not so hard:sarc)

[MartialHorror]

Heh, try telling that to people of mixed descent of the time. They were 2nd class among 2nd class.



What if she responded that since she's a human being he should heal her daughter? If she didn't prostrate herself, would he have healed her daughter?



....go back to the shopkeeper example, review that, get back to me.



Like what? The Roman Centurion?



What does that make Christians then?



Why is it that the default answer always "you're being selective" or "you're taking it out of context" with you people? If Jesus didn't display vibrant racist tendencies in this story would wouldn't have anything to out.

Jesus fucking Christ, if the man is contradictory in his approach to non-Jews don't you realize what a theological whopper of an issue that is?

It only takes one time to be pegged as a racist, look at Michael Richards.


1) I can't help what the public thinks.

2) Maybe, maybe not. "What if" questions are among the dumbest things to ask in a debate like this. Based on Christs other comments and personality, she probably only had to say something along the lines that she believed Jesus was the messiah, ect,ect,ect and he would have healed her.

3) I dont remember what we were talking about on the shopkeeper.

4) I was thinking of the Samaritons...you know, the people who the Jews hated the most?

5) I believe the term "chosen people" simply means they were chosen to be the people who would bring Gods word to the world. Christians are just people who accept Christ. Keep in mind, it was Paul who declared there was a difference between Jews and Christians, not Christ.

6) Obviously the people of the time didn't think he was racist. As I said, you are selective in that you ignore every other story. If it is contradictory, then it is either fake or you are looking at it the wrong way. You are twisting the meanings because all you can do is read words, not understand them. I've already stated proof it wasn't a racial attack.

If it was, Jesus would have sent her away like his desciples wanted him too. He just found it odd that a non-jew, whose people probably hated jews, wanted help from a so called foreign messiah. Sarcasm? Maybe, but he healed her BECAUSE OF HER FAITH, not race.

[MartialHorror]

First, I don't believe in the normal conception of god. I do believe in an entity, that is so far removed from being a singular, self-conscious being that it can't be called a god without being misleading.
Am I an atheist?

No, or at least I dont think so.

God is a title above all. Its why I often try to point out "Supreme being" when dealing with Atheists.

[The Pink Ninja]

*Shrug*

Less cool than Jesus though also less fictional. Don't really give a damn about him. He's just the same as any other great religious figure like Moses or Sam.

[The_Unforgiven]

Such as, for instance, it is justifiable that ex-Muslims should be killed, which i find deplorable that you, Black_fenix and Hamoodi support.

I just wanted to reply to this before going off to bed. Killing traitors has always been the best policy towards them. In most countries, a traitor is sentenced to death. This has been proven time and again to be the best policy. For instance, in the story of Julius Caesar, after he beat pompey, hey gave clemency to Cassius and Brutus and pompey's other supporters. In the end, the ones who killed Caesar are cassius and brutus. Then again, when Brutus let Mark Antony live, he made the biggest mistake because he was the one to start the revolution. And then after that, after the Triumvirate won, Agustus went after Mark Antony when he went to Egypt because he was a traitor, and guess what? Agustus was the most successfull ruler of Rome.

So stop repeating that over and over again. Oh, I might reply to other stuff later.

[maj1n]

I just wanted to reply to this before going off to bed. Killing traitors has always been the best policy towards them. In most countries, a traitor is sentenced to death. This has been proven time and again to be the best policy. For instance, in the story of Julius Caesar, after he beat pompey, hey gave clemency to Cassius and Brutus and pompey's other supporters. In the end, the ones who killed Caesar are cassius and brutus. Then again, when Brutus let Mark Antony live, he made the biggest mistake because he was the one to start the revolution. And then after that, after the Triumvirate won, Agustus went after Mark Antony when he went to Egypt because he was a traitor, and guess what? Agustus was the most successfull ruler of Rome.

So stop repeating that over and over again. Oh, I might reply to other stuff later.
Wow you liken ex-Muslims to traitors of countries, and justify killing them with that.

Not only that, you state clearly, this is 'the best policy'.

Btw you would be wrong, a tratior to a country (at least a western one) entails taking action against said country in some fashion to cause damage.

Let me give you a clearer example, you know that in western countries there are opposition parties in Government to the established one? for example there are democrats are republicans in America, and for Australia there is Labour and Liberals?

That the liberals don't support the labour party doesn't make it so they are traitors and should be killed, neither does the fact that, if i disagree with my country and leave it to live somewhere else, im a traitor and should be killed.

But this is the logic you are using since an ex-muslim is simply one who leaves Islam, but you justify killing them.

As i said, i'm appalled you even support this, quite sickening really.

[The_Unforgiven]

Ex-muslims are considered traitors, not opposition. That is the difference.

[maj1n]

Ex-muslims are considered traitors, not opposition. That is the difference.
No, you tried to compare ex-muslims to traitors to countries, which are 'opposition'.

So you should be telling yourself there is a difference.

[The_Unforgiven]

Apparently you didn't understand what I was saying. Ex-muslims are dealt wiith as traitors. They are not considered opposition. You are the one that even got the term into the discussion. You have commited a fallacy here by attacking me in a weakened position, which I don't stand for.

[maj1n]

Apparently you didn't understand what I was saying. Ex-muslims are dealt wiith as traitors. They are not considered opposition. You are the one that even got the term into the discussion. You have commited a fallacy here by attacking me in a weakened position, which I don't stand for.
Ok i'll dissect your earlier post again.


I just wanted to reply to this before going off to bed. Killing traitors has always been the best policy towards them. In most countries, a traitor is sentenced to death.

Your implying they are traitors here, like traitors to countries, but no this is inaccurate, in western countries, a traitor is one who willfully tries to topple the Government in some way.


This has been proven time and again to be the best policy. For instance, in the story of Julius Caesar, after he beat pompey, hey gave clemency to Cassius and Brutus and pompey's other supporters. In the end, the ones who killed Caesar are cassius and brutus. Then again, when Brutus let Mark Antony live, he made the biggest mistake because he was the one to start the revolution. And then after that, after the Triumvirate won, Agustus went after Mark Antony when he went to Egypt because he was a traitor, and guess what? Agustus was the most successfull ruler of Rome.

This is a flawed analogy, agustus being (according to you) a good ruler of Rome has nothing to do with killing traitors as being 'the best option'.

Btw you do realise that technically Muhammad was a traitor to the Quraiysh, considering he did war against them.

It's amazing you justify killing ex-Muslims.

[The_Unforgiven]

This is a flawed analogy, agustus being (according to you) a good ruler of Rome has nothing to do with killing traitors as being 'the best option'.

When agustus killed traitors, there was no one to conspire against him. When Caesar gave them clemency, they killed him.

Btw you do realise that technically Muhammad was a traitor to the Quraiysh, considering he did war against them.

Exactly, and didn't they try to kill him?

[maj1n]

When agustus killed traitors, there was no one to conspire against him. When Caesar gave them clemency, they killed him.

Exactly, and didn't they try to kill him?
Yes they did.

Your under a false assumption here, im not arguing about killing ex-Muslims under the reasoning of consolidating and keeping power, but that it is immoral.

You support and justify killing ex-Muslims, you consider it moral, as you consider them 'traitors' and their punishment is death.

Killing those who have different opinions, or do not support your beliefs, is not healthy for any society, it stifles growth.

That is why western societies are so good at being creative, they do not have a death sentence for those who disagree with that which is established.

[The_Unforgiven]

Yes they did.

Proof?
Killing those who have different opinions, or do not support your beliefs, is not healthy for any society, it stifles growth.



That's great, except that in muslim countries there were people of different opinions and religions living there at the time (you yourself provided a hadith on muslims and christians living together)

[maj1n]

Proof?

of? im agreeing with you.


That's great, except that in muslim countries there were people of different opinions and religions living there at the time (you yourself provided a hadith on muslims and christians living together)
and? i dearly wish that Abu Bakr didn't kill the ex-muslims in that area, they were living together, perhaps if they were allowed to continue to do so, they could have encouraged peace between religions.

It's sad you support killing ex-Muslims, wish i could convince you otherwise.

[The_Unforgiven]

I wish you could too.

[Diamed]

Anyone who counsels murdering someone for simply changing his mind, doing no harm to anyone else and simply following his inner conscious, is evil and trash.

It's unbelievable that someone could appear on this forum and justify murdering someone for converting to christianity, or buddhism, or hinduism, or, gasp, atheism. It shows what an unbridgeable gap there is between us and them. Anyone born to muslim parents is considered a muslim and if he ever converts he's on the death list right? So eventually if the whole world was muslim even once, it would be the death penalty to ever be not muslim from then on, right? Oh, and you guys also have multiple charges in the quran to wage jihad and conquer the world so it's all muslim, right? So if Mohammed has his way, anyone who didn't think like him should be killed?

Everyone has a moral right to freedom of thought, speech, conscience, and religion. Everyone has the moral duty to respect and tolerate other people's decisions and live peacefully, in a non violent fashion. While every other religion has moved on, the muslims still say they can kill you for simply believing or saying something, and support the eventual conquest and enslavement of the whole world. Their ideal world is one of complete stagnation, with no questioning of tradition or beliefs, no diversity, and no tolerance. Now, this might just be a fable, but it's too good to miss:

When the byzantines begged the muslim general who took alexandria to spare the great library, he said: "If it agrees with the Koran it is superfluous, if it disagrees it is heretical, burn it all."

Certainly the backwardness of Islam is in perfect consonance with this statement, having never made an important scientific or mathematical or any knowledge-based contribution to the world's progress for something like a thousand years. They can't even figure out how to pump their own oil and require experts from abroad to do it for them. GG.

[Zodd]

Well, he's the only real one of the three. Abraham never existed, Jesus never existed, but Muhammad most certainly did. His friends and family started bloodlines that could be traced back to him, and he left something tangible behind when he died-- the fledgling beginnings of an empire.

Also, his descendants tended to be very tolerant of religion, especially compared to the Byzantines, whom they overran. Over all a net positive.

[MartialHorror]

While every other religion has moved on, the muslims still say they can kill you for simply believing or saying something, and support the eventual conquest and enslavement of the whole world. Their ideal world is one of complete stagnation, with no questioning of tradition or beliefs, no diversity, and no tolerance. Now, this might just be a fable, but it's too good to miss:


.

To be fair, most of this activity is in the middle-east, which is simply a fucked up place to be. Generally, people become like this in desperation to be worth something. Example, even though the Koran has many odd verss supporting murder, it has its rules. Terrorists ignore these rules for most of their acts. It's simply because they are weak and don't know any better. If the middle-east was more like the west there would probably be much less terrorizing.

You forget Islam is relatively new as well. It took Christians quite some time to shapen up. I'm sure Muslims will improve in the future.

Zodd: You do realize most scholars/historians believe Jesus existed, right? His story exagerated? Probably(in their minds), but most believe there was a historical Jesus.

[maj1n]

To be fair, most of this activity is in the middle-east, which is simply a fucked up place to be. Generally, people become like this in desperation to be worth something. Example, even though the Koran has many odd verss supporting murder, it has its rules. Terrorists ignore these rules for most of their acts. It's simply because they are weak and don't know any better. If the middle-east was more like the west there would probably be much less terrorizing.

You forget Islam is relatively new as well. It took Christians quite some time to shapen up. I'm sure Muslims will improve in the future.

Zodd: You do realize most scholars/historians believe Jesus existed, right? His story exagerated? Probably(in their minds), but most believe there was a historical Jesus.
I have few hopes for the Islamic world, even at this day and age, the muslim countries still enact those barbaric rules where your killed if you become an ex-muslim, dress 'immodestly', insult Muhammad in some way.

These laws are in effect in Egypt, Iran and Pakistan (and others but their notable).

If the biggest Islamic countries are like this, there is no real hope for change in any immediate future.

The only solution is to westernise muslim countries, which is why Turkey has a relatively good quality of life compared to neighbouring middle eastern countries, they embraced western culture.

[hcheng02]

I think that Muhammad was a decent moral sage for his time. You certainly can't judge him by modern standards, any more than you can judge any other moral sage/philosopher. I don't think that he was actually given any divine inspiration. He wrote the Quran, or dictated it to someone since he was supposedly illiterate, after studying Judaism and Christianity and then putting his own spin on it. The fact that he was able to form an army and establish a successful religion is pretty impressive. I respect any person who can lead a successful military campaign especially if the details of him being an illiterate orphan are true. He must have been a supremely charismatic person if he could rally all the conflicting tribes to serve him, as well as set an ideology for them to all follow.

In my mind the three monotheistic religions are like this:
Judaism: Waiting for the Messiah.
Christianity: Messiah was here. Waiting for his return.
Islam: There are no more messiahs after Muhammad.

[Zodd]

Zodd: You do realize most scholars/historians believe Jesus existed, right? His story exagerated? Probably(in their minds), but most believe there was a historical Jesus.

There were many men named "Jesus" at the time. So much so that when another of the many prophets of the time popped up, the people would say, "not another Jesus."

The Jesus of the Bible is utter fiction. It's just a name and never was a real person. Muhammad may have been a power-hungry warlord/politician, but he was real.

[hcheng02]

There were many men named "Jesus" at the time. So much so that when another of the many prophets of the time popped up, the people would say, "not another Jesus."

The Jesus of the Bible is utter fiction. It's just a name and never was a real person.

I was not aware that Jesus was a popular name at that point. There were certainly many other competing faiths and prophets at the time, I'll give you that. What about Moses and Abraham?

[.Near]

Religion sucks IMO.

BTW Jesus really wasn't "Jusus's" name. It was translated from ROMAN text.

[Zodd]

I was not aware that Jesus was a popular name at that point. There were certainly many other competing faiths and prophets at the time, I'll give you that. What about Moses and Abraham?

Fiction. EDIT: Forgive me, it's late here. Noah is, Moses is another fiction. Possibly based off a rebel Egyptian prince.

Abraham is a fictitious hero, just like David.

BTW, IIRC there were something like 19 recorded men named "Jesus."

[MartialHorror]

There were many men named "Jesus" at the time. So much so that when another of the many prophets of the time popped up, the people would say, "not another Jesus."

The Jesus of the Bible is utter fiction. It's just a name and never was a real person. Muhammad may have been a power-hungry warlord/politician, but he was real.

It's not a matter of being recorded. In truth, there is no direct historical evidense.

Yes, Jesus was a common name. Although I doubt people would say "not another...". It's like if someone was named John.

Most scholars/historians believe there was a historical jesus because

1) Most Christians/Jews around the time acknowledged his existence.
2) Even though some roman and jewish historical records slam him, no one ever denies his existence.
3) Jews slammed Christianity due to the fact they needed someone they could see and touch as proof of a God. This could presume this was what sparked earlier Christianity which means the early Christians probably knew Jesus existed.
4) Justin Martyr I believe referenced a document(s) that apparently gave a detailed account of the crucifixion. This would mean during the time there was more proof, but the text has since been lost.

5) Interestingly enough, another historian quotes from a document/book that apparently says the earth became dark(dated around the time of Jesus's death). Granted, this doesn't mean anything being people could have simply added that to the story. The text he quoted from has since been lost.


With all due respect, you apparently know little about this issue. If you did, you wouldn't have responded with "there were many people whose names were Jesus".

First off, most of the earlier quotes refer to him as Christ, not Jesus. In fact, I think the Bible is the only text that refers to him as Jesus(I could be wrong here). The only people in the Bible we can more-or-less prove are
-Peter and Paul(letters were found mentioning their executions. Paul himself is believed to most likely have existed anyway, acknowledged by just about everyone)
-David(One of the Phaoroh's mention "The house of David")

You either think you are so intelligent you know more than most scholars/historians or are simply ignorant to the subject. I wont say most, but a strong amount believe the Bible is a significant basis for the life of Jesus. Most scholars do believe certain things were added, or exagerated, but believe most likely what Jesus taught is included in the Bible.

The big issue in this is that what Jesus taught would have been considered blasphemy back then, and no one would want to risk writing that. Paul would have been around 20 when Jesus died yet seemed to believe he existed regardless(Paul was a staunch Jew prior to becoming Christian). Many of Pauls stories include popular biblical stories about Jesus(such as the last supper) and also references many of Jesus's teachings. So even if Jesus is 100% fictional, the stories were already around and popular by the time of Paul.

So its very likely Jesus existed and did/taught many of the things as stated in the Bible.....although most experts obviously believe it has been altered to make him seem more godly.

[MartialHorror]

I have few hopes for the Islamic world, even at this day and age, the muslim countries still enact those barbaric rules where your killed if you become an ex-muslim, dress 'immodestly', insult Muhammad in some way.

These laws are in effect in Egypt, Iran and Pakistan (and others but their notable).

If the biggest Islamic countries are like this, there is no real hope for change in any immediate future.

The only solution is to westernise muslim countries, which is why Turkey has a relatively good quality of life compared to neighbouring middle eastern countries, they embraced western culture.


Yeah, well, like I said it took Christianity and other religions alot longer to be reformed.

My anthropology teacher stated its near impossible to westernize these cultures at this point. I agree. I mean look at the U.S. We've become so liberal yet we have so many conservatives. I see convervatism in the U.S as positive(I believe balance must be kept) but look at what it was only 50 years ago, and it was worse 100 years ago.

Now look at conservatives in these countries. Change is slow, and these Islamic conservatives are much more difficult than the U.S conservatives.

[Tokoyami]

Zodd may UI ask you what drugs your on? I'm one of the biggest religion bashers here and even I beleive that jesus existed once......however I kinda think he was a really weird hippyish sort of guy who had some good things to say that was then blown up into the son of god or whatever by his loyal faggot brigade..
.

Kind of like a really bad inuyasha fan that obsesses over one of the characters.....and somehow made a religion out of it......

[Razgriez]

He was probably an all round good person. But just like any other martyr their teachings get twisted by those seeking control over others and using it for bad gains.

He probably had his bad tendencies though that many people of that culture are guilty of though. Its just their way of life though.

Religion itself is a extremely dangerous tool that is constantly used for selfish and ignorant gains. Its depressing really.

[maj1n]

It's not a matter of being recorded. In truth, there is no direct historical evidense.

Then you dont have a credible case for the existance of Jesus.


Most scholars/historians believe there was a historical jesus because

1) Most Christians/Jews around the time acknowledged his existence.

Nice lying there, all biblical historians know that there is not one mention of Jesus in any Jewish or Christian writing when he was alive.


2) Even though some roman and jewish historical records slam him, no one ever denies his existence.

Really? then you'd be dead wrong since in Rome, the competing religion Mithraism would directly deny Jesus.


3) Jews slammed Christianity due to the fact they needed someone they could see and touch as proof of a God. This could presume this was what sparked earlier Christianity which means the early Christians probably knew Jesus existed.

Wtf kind of assumption is this? historians don't assume excuses, so trying to say 'historians' support YOUR argument is silly.


4) Justin Martyr I believe referenced a document(s) that apparently gave a detailed account of the crucifixion. This would mean during the time there was more proof, but the text has since been lost.

THen you believe wrong, Justin Martyr did not live during Jesus' time, he was born nearly a full 70 years after Jesus died.


5) Interestingly enough, another historian quotes from a document/book that apparently says the earth became dark(dated around the time of Jesus's death). Granted, this doesn't mean anything being people could have simply added that to the story. The text he quoted from has since been lost.

Interestingly enough, your full of shit, how exactly can historians quote a book dated to jesus' death if the text is lost, nice contradiction of yourself.

Btw, the 'darkness' during jesus' death is impossible, it is a physical impossibility, you might like to note, for instance, when the Jews performed their pass over, it is done on a full moon, which makes a solar eclipse impossible.

Julius Africanus thousands of years ago figured this out, yet Christians still believe it happened.


With all due respect, you apparently know little about this issue. If you did, you wouldn't have responded with "there were many people whose names were Jesus".

With all due respect, you don't, i can see from your post you cite NO evidence, merely vague 'the historians say this'.

Btw, ever done an historical analysis, i'll give you a tip, no historian proves his assertion by 'that historian said so'.


The big issue in this is that what Jesus taught would have been considered blasphemy back then, and no one would want to risk writing that. Paul would have been around 20 when Jesus died yet seemed to believe he existed regardless(Paul was a staunch Jew prior to becoming Christian). Many of Pauls stories include popular biblical stories about Jesus(such as the last supper) and also references many of Jesus's teachings. So even if Jesus is 100% fictional, the stories were already around and popular by the time of Paul.

Paul explicitly states in the Bible he never met Jesus.


So its very likely Jesus existed and did/taught many of the things as stated in the Bible.....although most experts obviously believe it has been altered to make him seem more godly.
No, it is not, the biblical Jesus most likely never existed, was it partially based on a real historical person? that is something no one can say for sure.

[Ero_Sennin]

Where is the "I don't know Muhammad/Mohammad's story" option?

[Edo]

That's the story, Matthew 15:22 (NIV Version):

22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

He relents eventually, which is a point in his favor. That however does not fare well since he only relented after his comparision of the woman to a dog was accepted by the woman. He out and out states he's only there for the Jews, not on some worldwide mission. That's pretty racist if you ask me.


You completely misunderstood this.

Many of Jesus's actions seem strange at first glance until you look deeper into them to get the true meaning.

According to Judism, only jews had the right to be saved, they were chosen by God himself, and that choice came about because they believed in him, this goes back to Abraham.

No in this incident, Jesus indirectly show his apostles how all people have the right to be saved, no matter what opinion you have of them....there is also one similar lesson when one of the apostle has a dream about food ( can't remember it right now) but it had the same message, that the holy spirit was for everyone not just for jews.

You did take this out of context in your earlier post by the way.


Back on topic:
As for Mohammad, well I can't say I have a good opinion of him. His actions are contradictory and confusing most of the time. Why he had to marry so many women is beyond me....

[The_Unforgiven]

Why he had to marry so many women is beyond me....


MAny times, it was to show us who you can get married to.

[MartialHorror]

Then you dont have a credible case for the existance of Jesus.


Nice lying there, all biblical historians know that there is not one mention of Jesus in any Jewish or Christian writing when he was alive.


Really? then you'd be dead wrong since in Rome, the competing religion Mithraism would directly deny Jesus.


Wtf kind of assumption is this? historians don't assume excuses, so trying to say 'historians' support YOUR argument is silly.


THen you believe wrong, Justin Martyr did not live during Jesus' time, he was born nearly a full 70 years after Jesus died.


Interestingly enough, your full of shit, how exactly can historians quote a book dated to jesus' death if the text is lost, nice contradiction of yourself.

Btw, the 'darkness' during jesus' death is impossible, it is a physical impossibility, you might like to note, for instance, when the Jews performed their pass over, it is done on a full moon, which makes a solar eclipse impossible.

Julius Africanus thousands of years ago figured this out, yet Christians still believe it happened.


With all due respect, you don't, i can see from your post you cite NO evidence, merely vague 'the historians say this'.

Btw, ever done an historical analysis, i'll give you a tip, no historian proves his assertion by 'that historian said so'.


Paul explicitly states in the Bible he never met Jesus.


No, it is not, the biblical Jesus most likely never existed, was it partially based on a real historical person? that is something no one can say for sure.


1) Once again, most scholars disagree.

2) I didn't say when he was alive, I said earliest records.

3) When I say "deny his existence" I mean no one questions his existence. His divinity or whatever is another thing.

4) The excuse as to why Christianity existed as it did was for this reason, so if early Christians had not seen Jesus or heard enough credible proof, they would not convert. And I've stated simply most historians/scholars believe there was a historical Jesus.....it's common knowledge.

5) Did you read my point? He was quoting from another document about Pilate allowing Christ to be crucified. That means at that point, there was probably evidense of his existence.

6) How am I full of shit? Here is an example. Lets say I wrote a book and in it I quoted the book of revelation. Now lets say 200-300 years later the book of revelation has been completely whiped out from existence but my book was still around with that quote. So by my quote, we would know the book of revelation existed.

7) lol, you obviously need to look this shit up. There was a historian named Thallus. His works were popular from around 50AD-200AD yet survived for quite some time after. Nevertheless, his works are all lost. We only have references from other historians. Strangely, it was Africanus who quoted this.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.["

8) lol, I believe in Evolution(despite being Christian) because most scientists say so. I believe the people who are qualified in these areas as reliable enough for me to believe.

9) I know he didn't meet Jesus, but he obviously believed he existed.

10) Of course, you are more credible than the majority of scholars/historians......

I'm trying to decide if you are just not very intelligent or don't know how to read. You misinterpreted most of my points and don't seem to understand common sense.

[The_Unforgiven]

I'm trying to decide if you are just not very intelligent or don't know how to read. You misinterpreted most of my points and don't seem to understand common sense.


I have been waiting for so long to say this: MH, how does it feel to "debate" Maj1n

[maj1n]

1) Once again, most scholars disagree.

No, they don't, all biblical scholars know there is no mention of Jesus by any contemporary writer when he was alive.

Show me one ounce of evidence for your claim.


2) I didn't say when he was alive, I said earliest records.

The jews denied him.


3) When I say "deny his existence" I mean no one questions his existence. His divinity or whatever is another thing.

Christians denied his divinity.


4) The excuse as to why Christianity existed as it did was for this reason, so if early Christians had not seen Jesus or heard enough credible proof, they would not convert. And I've stated simply most historians/scholars believe there was a historical Jesus.....it's common knowledge.

No, no historian ever uses this excuse, show me one.

Btw, historical analysis never ever proves a point by 'because they said so'

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum


5) Did you read my point? He was quoting from another document about Pilate allowing Christ to be crucified. That means at that point, there was probably evidense of his existence.

No, he wasn't.


6) How am I full of shit? Here is an example. Lets say I wrote a book and in it I quoted the book of revelation. Now lets say 200-300 years later the book of revelation has been completely whiped out from existence but my book was still around with that quote. So by my quote, we would know the book of revelation existed.

No, you wouldn't, because we would not know of any book of revelation, just a single passage that could be from anything.


7) lol, you obviously need to look this shit up. There was a historian named Thallus. His works were popular from around 50AD-200AD yet survived for quite some time after. Nevertheless, his works are all lost. We only have references from other historians. Strangely, it was Africanus who quoted this.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.["

Lol, heres a little logic for you, if its a physical impossibility, it means anyone claiming it happened LIED, do you understand?

It is a physical impossibility, how hard is that to understand? many people claimed that the world is flat and ended, but we know this not to be true, but with your logic we would have to say it is credible the world is flat, despite it being physically impossible.

Btw its interesting you cut out the next section.

"without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun? "

8) lol, I believe in Evolution(despite being Christian) because most scientists say so. I believe the people who are qualified in these areas as reliable enough for me to believe.

Then you believe only because someone say's so.


10) Of course, you are more credible than the majority of scholars/historians......

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

Was Darwin more credible then everyone else when he was alive? because no one believed his evolution theory (apart from perhaps Wallace).

[MartialHorror]

1) I STATED this already. Ultimately, I wouldn't know where to find evidense. My college history teacher, anthropology teacher and World religion teacher all basically said this(Not sure what religion the history teacher belonged too, anthropology teacher is an atheist, Religion teacher was Jewish). I think I also read it on wikipedia......but I doubt that would count. I also think it was in "the case for Christ"(Where I got the Thallus bit).

2) Er, what does this have to do with my point? Yes, the Jews denied him.....and most of the earlier records were Roman I think.

3) No they didn't......

4) I'm not a historian, so.........Yet I know enough to give a much more credible debate. All you've said "is he didn't exist".

5) Yes.....he was.

6) If I referenced it as "The Book of revelation", then yes we would.

7) I'm not saying it isn't a physical impossibility. But Thallus also claimed he thought it was an eclipse of the sun, not a miracle of God. So while he may have been mistaken, he clearly thought the world was dark. This doesn't mean the actual world went dark, there could be a more rational explanation. But the fact he believed so shows that something happened which gave him that impression. The flat-earth bit is a flawed excuse because that was a belief from everyone who had no reason or proof to believe otherwise. This was an event, something historians write down.

8) Becuase I know their smarter than me, and the idea of evolution doesn't effect me one way or another.

9) More flawed logic. For one, Darwin came during a conservatively religious time, mostly Christian. Most historians and scholars aren't Christian, and there generally isn't much bias UNLESS you are of a religion. I can easily reverse this on you saying "The Flood did happen" because a few reliable scientists say so. Yet then you would respond "its full of shit". You then get most of your facts from OTHER scientists who say otherwise to respond. I avoid flood debates, because most experts think it didn't. Never debate a scientist unless you are a scientist yourself, and never debate a historian unless you are a historian. Even if a historian came to me debating that Jesus was a myth, I wouldn't debate him because I know he is more reliable on the subject than I am. On the other hand, what he says probably won't affect me as much because I know he is a minority.(I say probably because you never know how smart someone can be)

Hamoodi: Not much, I used to think DarkAdonis was a bad debator but lately guys like Diamad, Tokoyomi, and Saufolsdat have changed my mind. Yet Majin doesn't even seem to be trying.

[Sexta Espada]

Another dipshit who used a heaven concept to get people to follow him/AKA give him power for no really good reason.

A spiritual politician, if you will.

[maj1n]

1) I STATED this already. Ultimately, I wouldn't know where to find evidense. My college history teacher, anthropology teacher and World religion teacher all basically said this(Not sure what religion the history teacher belonged too, anthropology teacher is an atheist, Religion teacher was Jewish). I think I also read it on wikipedia......but I doubt that would count. I also think it was in "the case for Christ"(Where I got the Thallus bit).

If you don't even have experience with the evidence, you cannot even mount a credible case that the biblical jesus existed.


2) Er, what does this have to do with my point? Yes, the Jews denied him.....and most of the earlier records were Roman I think.

Then you contradict your earlier post.


Even though some roman and jewish historical records slam him, no one ever denies his existence.



3) No they didn't......

Then your not aware of the council of Constantinople, of which there were rival thoughts of Jesus, one of them is that Jesus was a human, who simply heard God, not divine himself.

Emperor Theodosius had to mandate that the trinity concept be the official one and all others heretical, why would he need to unless there were differing beliefs.


4) I'm not a historian, so.........Yet I know enough to give a much more credible debate. All you've said "is he didn't exist".

No, but that there is no credible evidence supporting his existance, for any debate, the affirmitive provides the evidence, if you say he exists, you must present evidence.


5) Yes.....he was.

No, he wasn't, it is flat out not possible to even suggest he quoted anything from Jesus' time because that requires us to have the actual document to date it.

And, he never quoted any document, i have read his letter to Romans, he merely describes the crucifixion, which he could not witness since he was born 70 years after Jesus died, hence it is based on a story.


7) I'm not saying it isn't a physical impossibility. But Thallus also claimed he thought it was an eclipse of the sun, not a miracle of God. So while he may have been mistaken, he clearly thought the world was dark. This doesn't mean the actual world went dark, there could be a more rational explanation. But the fact he believed so shows that something happened which gave him that impression. The flat-earth bit is a flawed excuse because that was a belief from everyone who had no reason or proof to believe otherwise. This was an event, something historians write down.

Another mistake.

"This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?"

It is quite clear that Julius considered Thallus to have written believed miracles of the Christian faith.

And you still dont seem to understand, it is a physical impossibility to have a solar eclipse on a full moon, other then an eclipse, you flat out cannot have a darkness that could last for 3 days,, we also must note that this darkness is supposed to have covered the whole world, so only one person actually wrote about it?

It is not a question anymore, science disproves this, and your argument is really bad, essentially your saying 'an historian could have said it, so it must be true', so if a historian says he saw the end of a flat earth, this must be true?


8) Becuase I know their smarter than me, and the idea of evolution doesn't effect me one way or another.

Here is a bit of logic, nothing is true simply because someone says it is.


9) More flawed logic. For one, Darwin came during a conservatively religious time, mostly Christian. Most historians and scholars aren't Christian, and there generally isn't much bias UNLESS you are of a religion. I can easily reverse this on you saying "The Flood did happen" because a few reliable scientists say so. Yet then you would respond "its full of shit". You then get most of your facts from OTHER scientists who say otherwise to respond. I avoid flood debates, because most experts think it didn't. Never debate a scientist unless you are a scientist yourself, and never debate a historian unless you are a historian. Even if a historian came to me debating that Jesus was a myth, I wouldn't debate him because I know he is more reliable on the subject than I am. On the other hand, what he says probably won't affect me as much because I know he is a minority.(I say probably because you never know how smart someone can be)

most historians and scholars aren't christian? your definitely wrong there, the majority of historians in the western world are Christian then any other belief group, which is why one must look at the evidence carefully, bias can get in the way.

Here is another bit of logic, it is valid to refrain from arguing a proposition (stating something as true or false) if you have no idea, it is not valid to state something as true or false if you don't have any justification of it

Do you know why people trust scientists and historians? it is not because they are scientists or historians, but that from their occupation, they should have evidence supporting their assertions in their given field.

Therefore, in any debate, an assertion that something is so, must be supported by evidence, it is stupid to do the 'these people said it, so it must be true'.

Do you know what a peer review is? it is a very stringent and necessary process whereby scientists submit whatever assertion they have, to other scientists for them to criticize and analyze, and here is an important point they never prove their assertions by saying some other scientist agreed with them.

Btw, a solar eclipse on a full moon is impossible, but according to your argument, because Thallus is a historian of antiquity, it MUST have happened.

So science is wrong?

[Unnamedpoet]

No offense intended but some people in this thread need to read his biography before making hasty decisions. As far as proof of his existence goes, his grave is in Medinah (Masjid Al-Munawwarah).

[MartialHorror]

1) But I do, I took their lessons and wrote notes. Isn't that what school is for, to learn? ANd keep in mind, you aren't really showing any "evidense" either.

2) lol, exploiting my one error. Yes, I messed up there. I thought one of the sources was Jewish(turned out to be a roman). ALTHOUGH, its accepted Flavious Josephus(sp?),a Jewish Historian mentions him twice. One doesn't really say much about him, the other is believed to be have edited by an early Christian scribe. Scholars generally believe he did write something(probably negative), because an early Christian Author(Origen?) says "He did not accept Christ" quite negatively, but this is debated. An arabic version resurfaced, but isn't held in high regards either because of some errors and the fact Jesus is described in a very Islamic way(like the other being described in a very Christian way). Regardless, the passage has Josephus calling Jesus the Christ, which was OOC anyway. The passage that is accepted though is

"and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Most scholars do accept this, and even Origen mentions this, implying this passage was around prior to the other edit.

3) When I said early Christians, I meant EARLY Christians. I dont consider 300AD to be that early. But regardless, you are right. The idea was started by Arius, whose side was badly trashed during the Niceae. It became bigger I guess during the time of council of Selecuia(why didn't you use this one) but was RESOLVED. It was continued, but never held the majority of believers.

4) I've given enough reason, which apparently is enough for most historians/scholars to agree. lol.

5) Actually, he said the crucifixion of Jesus could be verified by "Acts of Pontius Pilate"(not to be confused with a later "Acts of PP", which is more of a gospel). —"And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." At this time, it was believed to have been considered a historical document. Of course, this is quite subjective. I say this was meant to be a historical document because he references this instead of other gospels, indicating the others were probably thought of then by non-christians as they do now, simply religious texts of another religion. But Justin seems to use this as if it was an all around accepted historical document, not just a typical gospel.

7) A historian cannot see a flat earth, anymore than a historian can see a round earth(unless he is in space). "without reason it seems to me" shows it was his opinion(it seems to me) and "without reason" means there is no reason for it. And its INCREDIBLY stupid to say "its impossible" to a Christian, who believes God can do anything. Its like saying "Virgins can't give birth!", which probably would be quite easy if God can create a universe. Also, is it just me or if Thallus was lying would his books be popular?

8) So I can say your not correct just because you say so, which has basically been your debate. All you have said is "he doesn't exist". I've heard good arguments for the idea, yet you haven't brought them up. I wonder why. I know just because someone says its true doesn't make it so, but I have read both arguments and the one that supportes the existence of Christ makes much more sense to me. Maybe because I'm biased, but once again, most historians/scholars believing the same thing shows its not about being biased or not.

9) For one, I actually didn't say a solar eclipse happened, I said clearly he thought it could. Two, Christians believe God created science so can defy or even manipulate it. I know they all use evidense, and the reason why most people who believe in evolution believe in it without really knowing that much about it, because scientists explain it for them. I've also stated my reasons as to why Jesus probably existed and use the "historians/scholars accept.." simply to show it is not just my bias doing the thinking. Finally, you have been bashing me for my lack of evidense but then say "Most historians are Christian" without any of your own evidense to support it. As you said, just because you say so doesn't make it true. Also, you are just some nerdy kid on an anime forum just like the rest of us so you probably aren't an expert in demographics. So your probably going off of personal speculation.

[Zodd]

Zodd may UI ask you what drugs your on? I'm one of the biggest religion bashers here and even I beleive that jesus existed once......however I kinda think he was a really weird hippyish sort of guy who had some good things to say that was then blown up into the son of god or whatever by his loyal faggot brigade..
.

Kind of like a really bad inuyasha fan that obsesses over one of the characters.....and somehow made a religion out of it......

You accept it simply because you hear it repeated, or because he's weird and hippyish? Is that a good enough reason?

It's not a matter of being recorded. In truth, there is no direct historical evidense.

True.


1) Most Christians/Jews around the time acknowledged his existence.

Josephus mentioned Jesus the earliest. He was not born until after Jesus supposedly died. All recordings of Jesus' supposed life come after his death. There is no report of Jesus from the time in which he lived, or by the Roman authorities, who were relatively superb record keepers.

2) Even though some roman and jewish historical records slam him, no one ever denies his existence.

Please point to one source. This claim is bogus. There is no mention of him from the time he supposedly lived.

4) Justin Martyr I believe referenced a document(s) that apparently gave a detailed account of the crucifixion. This would mean during the time there was more proof, but the text has since been lost.

Yes lost. Like all other concrete proof of Jesus. We have concrete proof Julius Caesar, Alexander, Augustus, Ramses, Muhammad, etc. Every great man left behind some form of proof. Yet Jesus is an exception. We know why: he is fictional.

5) Interestingly enough, another historian quotes from a document/book that apparently says the earth became dark(dated around the time of Jesus's death). Granted, this doesn't mean anything being people could have simply added that to the story. The text he quoted from has since been lost.

Sounds like a fable to me. There are Native American legends that have people turning into animals. Does that make it true?


With all due respect, you apparently know little about this issue. If you did, you wouldn't have responded with "there were many people whose names were Jesus".

You don't need to add "with all due respect" when you intend to insult me. So I will give you none in return. There are records of 19 other men named "Jesus." Yehoshua was a name synonymous with "prophet." To be a Jesus meant one was styling himself a prophet. You seem to be the ignorant one here. You give no proof, no specific references, and nothing of any value other than vague remembrances plucked out of the ether of your brain. With all due respect, of course.

First off, most of the earlier quotes refer to him as Christ, not Jesus. In fact, I think the Bible is the only text that refers to him as Jesus(I could be wrong here).

I think you've got those mixed up. Christ was added later, as it is a Greek word.

The only people in the Bible we can more-or-less prove are
-Peter and Paul(letters were found mentioning their executions. Paul himself is believed to most likely have existed anyway, acknowledged by just about everyone)

Most of Paul's writings are inconsistent, and it appears to be written by a variety of people. Paul supposedly even had another friend named "Jesus."

You either think you are so intelligent you know more than most scholars/historians or are simply ignorant to the subject. I wont say most, but a strong amount believe the Bible is a significant basis for the life of Jesus. Most scholars do believe certain things were added, or exagerated, but believe most likely what Jesus taught is included in the Bible.

Most historical scholars issue little or no opinion on historical Jesus or the veracity of Christendom's claims that he lived. They simply examine the spread of Christianity. I have scholars who disprove the Jesus myth.

The big issue in this is that what Jesus taught would have been considered blasphemy back then, and no one would want to risk writing that. Paul would have been around 20 when Jesus died yet seemed to believe he existed regardless(Paul was a staunch Jew prior to becoming Christian). Many of Pauls stories include popular biblical stories about Jesus(such as the last supper) and also references many of Jesus's teachings. So even if Jesus is 100% fictional, the stories were already around and popular by the time of Paul.

So its very likely Jesus existed and did/taught many of the things as stated in the Bible.....although most experts obviously believe it has been altered to make him seem more godly.

Paul is a fabrication. His writings are totally inconsistent. The stories about him are not believable. A good summary of the skeptical historian's perspective concerning Paul can be found here. (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm) Look at the entirety of the evidence for Paul: the inconsistencies of the accounts, the anachronisms, and the plain old tall tales with flat out absurdities.

[MartialHorror]

Yay, Zodd actually seems to know more than Majin!

1) I meant most Christians/Jews prior to him. And even regarding him, Josephus would have known people who would have known if he had existed or not. Paul lived during Jesus's time(although he never met him) and did not mention any dispute to his existence. The fact of the matter is, when Christianity started becoming annoying to the Jews, the Jews would have used his questionable existence to shut down Christianity(The Romans as well). We also know Pilate existed, and if his name was being used in a false claim, he would have reacted somehow. The Bible's potrayal as Pilate isn't much different than Josephus's potrayal of pilate(Didn't want to spark a riot), and if he knew Christians were saying this, he would have pointed it out himself they were lying.

2) This is referenced to in the point above.

4) You are forgetting one important aspect. Jesus never rose to power. The people you mention were all important names during their day. Jesus most likely wasn't that well known until his death. He may have been well known during his life, but would have been just cast off as another "wannabe messiah", which there were many at this point. It also took quite some time for Christianity to become organized in general. Nevertheless, you seemed to ignore my point. Justin mention the document as historical, in contrast to the gospels, implying it wasn't simply a gospel or he wouldn't have mentioned it to the Romans at all, or would have used another gospel.

5) Except Thallus was a well-accepted Historian. As I told Majin, whether the earth actually became dark or not is one thing, but clearly Thallus thought it did. It would be like Richard Dawkins, a well renowned scientist(and atheist) saying he saw Godzilla. I don't like this comparison very much but the point is if Dawkins said he saw that, he obviously would have thought he did. How our minds percieve things and what is truth are two very different things. It's why there are atheists and theists, we see the universe in two very different ways.

6) Jesus was just a name that meant God is salvation. the name was incredibly common anyway. I don't see how this helps you. If one Jesus became more famous than another, then thats that. I use common sense to deduce Jesus probably did exist. He probably was the same Jesus who is desribed in the gospels. Whether they were exagerated, re-edited, fictionalized or not is up to you. But generally when religion is created, its created to control. When the religious figure comes from another religion yet defies traditions then whoever is saying this(or writing the supposed fiction) is putting their lives on the line for not a very good reason. Do you honestly think the creator of scientology would have risked his life for his religion? No, he did it for the money because he was in a time when that was something you can do. During that time though, it was very dangerous to try something like that. And there wasn't much money to be made either because most of the people were poor.

7) Christ was a general term, often used. Jesus simply became known as this. Christ wasn't his last name, it was a title.

8) Hebrews is the only one generally believed to have not been written by Paul. The others are just questionable(scholars are generally split) but a noted responce is that most of them could have been written by his desciples. If I recall, its accepted Paul wrote 7 for sure. Didn't write Hebrews, and might(or might not) have written the other 6.

9) I've heard this before. I've also heard all the desciples didn't exist. I explained why these claims dont make sense. It would be impossible for them to be made up and for anyone else to take them seriously. If it was known jesus was fictional, or Paul was fictional, the Jews/Romans would have ended Christianity on the spot. You post one view from a scholar. I can post a view supporting the flood or creationism by someone who would be considered reliable. Yet would that prove creationism and the flood happened? When there is a select few and a majority of equally reliable scholars and historians, who is most likely going to be correct?

Edit: I apologize though for the insult. You didn't insult me, nor were acting like an ass in general so i had no right. I simply despise arrogance though, from Christian or Atheist, especially when they take a minority view.

[maj1n]

1) But I do, I took their lessons and wrote notes. Isn't that what school is for, to learn? ANd keep in mind, you aren't really showing any "evidense" either.

I don't need to, i am not affirming jesus existed, but that there is no credible evidence, understand? i am waiting for YOUR evidence.

As to school, i didn't learn jesus existed in school, and i went to a catholic one too, in history class.

2) lol, exploiting my one error. Yes, I messed up there. I thought one of the sources was Jewish(turned out to be a roman). ALTHOUGH, its accepted Flavious Josephus(sp?),a Jewish Historian mentions him twice. One doesn't really say much about him, the other is believed to be have edited by an early Christian scribe. Scholars generally believe he did write something(probably negative), because an early Christian Author(Origen?) says "He did not accept Christ" quite negatively, but this is debated. An arabic version resurfaced, but isn't held in high regards either because of some errors and the fact Jesus is described in a very Islamic way(like the other being described in a very Christian way). Regardless, the passage has Josephus calling Jesus the Christ, which was OOC anyway. The passage that is accepted though is

"and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Most scholars do accept this, and even Origen mentions this, implying this passage was around prior to the other edit.

we actually have Origens writings:
"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ"
-http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html

And at the very end of your cited passage (you quoted on a partial fragment).

"and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest"

Furthermore, The Antiquities of the Jews is written roughly 50 years after Jesus died, if he existed, it is even later then the Gospels, and is of no use.


3) When I said early Christians, I meant EARLY Christians. I dont consider 300AD to be that early. But regardless, you are right. The idea was started by Arius, whose side was badly trashed during the Niceae. It became bigger I guess during the time of council of Selecuia(why didn't you use this one) but was RESOLVED. It was continued, but never held the majority of believers.

It was resolved by force, by the ruling of the emperor in making it official, it was never resolved with any reason or logic.


4) I've given enough reason, which apparently is enough for most historians/scholars to agree. lol.

your only reason is that most historians/scholars believe Jesus existed, ever heard of circular logic?


5) Actually, he said the crucifixion of Jesus could be verified by "Acts of Pontius Pilate"(not to be confused with a later "Acts of PP", which is more of a gospel). —"And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." At this time, it was believed to have been considered a historical document. Of course, this is quite subjective. I say this was meant to be a historical document because he references this instead of other gospels, indicating the others were probably thought of then by non-christians as they do now, simply religious texts of another religion. But Justin seems to use this as if it was an all around accepted historical document, not just a typical gospel.

I do hope your not actually using the Acts of Pontius Pilate, because it is a well known forgery, even Eusebius knew this "among other things, their dating was quite wrong, as they placed the death of Jesus in the seventh year of Tiberius (AD 20), whereas the testimony of Josephus' is plain that Pilate not become procurator of Judaea till Tiberius' Twelfth year"


7) A historian cannot see a flat earth, anymore than a historian can see a round earth(unless he is in space). "without reason it seems to me" shows it was his opinion(it seems to me) and "without reason" means there is no reason for it. And its INCREDIBLY stupid to say "its impossible" to a Christian, who believes God can do anything. Its like saying "Virgins can't give birth!", which probably would be quite easy if God can create a universe. Also, is it just me or if Thallus was lying would his books be popular?

What exactly makes you think historians back then were actually as good as todays historians? do note Josephus is considered a historian of antiquity, he also wrote hercules existed.

A historian of antiquity is simply someone who is known to write down some events, he is not somehow a perfect recorder with the same methodology of today's historians.

But no, virgins can't give birth.

8) So I can say your not correct just because you say so, which has basically been your debate. All you have said is "he doesn't exist". I've heard good arguments for the idea, yet you haven't brought them up. I wonder why. I know just because someone says its true doesn't make it so, but I have read both arguments and the one that supportes the existence of Christ makes much more sense to me. Maybe because I'm biased, but once again, most historians/scholars believing the same thing shows its not about being biased or not.

the biblical jesus definitely never existed, someone that Jesus is based on could be, i dont believe anyone could be born of a virgin, i dont believe anyone can rise from the dead, followed by a worldwide darkness for 3 days, earthquakes, and zombies (yes zombies) rising from the grave.


9) For one, I actually didn't say a solar eclipse happened, I said clearly he thought it could. Two, Christians believe God created science so can defy or even manipulate it. I know they all use evidense, and the reason why most people who believe in evolution believe in it without really knowing that much about it, because scientists explain it for them. I've also stated my reasons as to why Jesus probably existed and use the "historians/scholars accept.." simply to show it is not just my bias doing the thinking.

your only reason for believing Jesus existed is because many historians believe he did (but not all), you cite very clearly there is no real evidence for Jesus, and you also have clearly said it is because many historians say Jesus existed, that you believe, so, as you compared it to believing evolution is true, simply because many Scientists say it is so.


I bolded your post, to show how bad your argument is, essentially what your trying to say is, despite ALL the physical evidence, because God can manipulate anything he wants, the eclipse could have happened, because God did it.

So, lets take this further, the world could indeed be flat, God is just manipulating science all the time to show us it is generally spherical.

[maj1n]

1) I meant most Christians/Jews prior to him. And even regarding him, Josephus would have known people who would have known if he had existed or not.

Your talking about a period of time where they believed in mythical Gods as true (like the Roman Gods), your trying to say that these people back then are as rational as us now, which they generally weren't.


Paul lived during Jesus's time(although he never met him) and did not mention any dispute to his existence.

Actually, if you didn't know, Pauls writings are a big problem for Christianity, they note nothing of Jesus' life. At all., it is commonly known as 'the silence of Paul' problem.


The fact of the matter is, when Christianity started becoming annoying to the Jews, the Jews would have used his questionable existence to shut down Christianity(The Romans as well). We also know Pilate existed, and if his name was being used in a false claim, he would have reacted somehow. The Bible's potrayal as Pilate isn't much different than Josephus's potrayal of pilate(Didn't want to spark a riot), and if he knew Christians were saying this, he would have pointed it out himself they were lying.

You really do seem to think that we have perfect records of everything back then, ok, here is an important point, we have very scarce evidence of things back then, where talking about 1-100AD.

We do not know if the Christian tales were widespread or just part of a minority (hence he would not react or even know about it), we do not know if it was made later after him, we do not know if he reacted or not since we do not have perfect records of everything that happened back then.


4) You are forgetting one important aspect. Jesus never rose to power. The people you mention were all important names during their day. Jesus most likely wasn't that well known until his death. He may have been well known during his life, but would have been just cast off as another "wannabe messiah", which there were many at this point. It also took quite some time for Christianity to become organized in general. Nevertheless, you seemed to ignore my point. Justin mention the document as historical, in contrast to the gospels, implying it wasn't simply a gospel or he wouldn't have mentioned it to the Romans at all, or would have used another gospel.

Your kidding right? do you even know Jesus' life? his death by crucifixion was witnessed by 'all the scribes' yet none wrote anything down, his death was followed by a 3day worldwide darkness that was apparently unrecorded by anyone but christians, zombies arose from the grave, which was apparently unrecorded by anyone, earthquakes happened, which apparently through magic cannot be detected even now.

His birth was signalled by a moving star, which apparently no one recorded despite astronomy being pretty damn important and popular back then.


5) Except Thallus was a well-accepted Historian. As I told Majin, whether the earth actually became dark or not is one thing, but clearly Thallus thought it did. It would be like Richard Dawkins, a well renowned scientist(and atheist) saying he saw Godzilla. I don't like this comparison very much but the point is if Dawkins said he saw that, he obviously would have thought he did. How our minds percieve things and what is truth are two very different things. It's why there are atheists and theists, we see the universe in two very different ways.

It's calling lying or being wrong martialhorror, when someones account conflicts with the physical universe, we generally know damn well their wrong.

a 3day worldwide darkness (which is supposed to be done by a solar eclipse) is impossible during a full moon, i haven't even got into the fact that it should have been witnessed by someone on another part of the world.


6) Jesus was just a name that meant God is salvation. the name was incredibly common anyway. I don't see how this helps you. If one Jesus became more famous than another, then thats that. I use common sense to deduce Jesus probably did exist. He probably was the same Jesus who is desribed in the gospels. Whether they were exagerated, re-edited, fictionalized or not is up to you. But generally when religion is created, its created to control. When the religious figure comes from another religion yet defies traditions then whoever is saying this(or writing the supposed fiction) is putting their lives on the line for not a very good reason. Do you honestly think the creator of scientology would have risked his life for his religion? No, he did it for the money because he was in a time when that was something you can do. During that time though, it was very dangerous to try something like that. And there wasn't much money to be made either because most of the people were poor.

What are you ranting about here? new ideas for religion happen ALL the time, even when the religion is popular, many greek gods got redefined in their personality and roles, according to your argument, this would never happen since it would be dangerous, but it did.


9) I've heard this before. I've also heard all the desciples didn't exist. I explained why these claims dont make sense. It would be impossible for them to be made up and for anyone else to take them seriously. If it was known jesus was fictional, or Paul was fictional, the Jews/Romans would have ended Christianity on the spot. You post one view from a scholar. I can post a view supporting the flood or creationism by someone who would be considered reliable. Yet would that prove creationism and the flood happened? When there is a select few and a majority of equally reliable scholars and historians, who is most likely going to be correct?

Nice flawed thinking here, if it was 'impossible' for them to be made up because alot of people took it seriously, then every religions claims are true because it would be impossible for them to be made up, because alot of people take them seriously.

Oh lets take scientology as an example, i suppose all their claims are true? they have quite alot of believers, what about Hinduism? Buddhism? Islam? Christianity? Wicca? Greek Gods? Roman Gods? Mithraism?

All of them have had large followings.

[MartialHorror]

1) Yet you speak to me as if you know, which implies you know Jesus did not exists, which means you have to prove his existence which common sense shows he most likely did exist. I was speaking of college, by the way, not high school.

2) I know, thats why I said we know one of Josephus's comments have been edited. The comment suggested Josephus was a christian, which means the writing we have today on that was not the same when Origen wrote it. I know it was written 50 years after his death. But that goes to show Jesus was believed to have existed that early. Josephus was also a staunch jew, so even the idea of Jesus not existing would have been appealing.

3) I know, because it was becoming out of hand and would probably have lead to violence. Yet the council of Niceae showed an earlier date of people believing Jesus was divine. It was simply that a peice of theology became popular.

4) And that reasoning is more than you have offered.

5) Unless I'm missing something, then it shouldn't be. Because the source says only one other guy referenced it and it(not Eusebius), I do remember Eusebius denounced another act of pilate though, but you have to also remember there are multiple acts of pilate.

6) Virgins can't give birth.....unless there is a God and he makes it happen(this is why its so annoying debating with Atheists, they are too closed minded to even the possibility). anyway, I heard somewhere that virgins can give birth(although the explanation was logical). You ignore the fact that historians back then had little to go to on the idea of past events like Hercules, which no one would know during his time. Do you know that most of OUR accepted history is quite fictional. We believe in a book written 100 years after Ceasar is correct. So if you really want to slam historians of the time that much, then we can't really accept any peice of history can we?

7) I dont believe in those things either...except if God makes it happen. When you say "based on Jesus", to what degree? I am saying the life and teachings were most likely similar to Jesus's, its just the more.....impossible stuff thats questionable. Do you agree with this or not?

8) The Bible never states the world to be flat, please try and post certain verses because they are all VISIONS. Yes, I believe God can do anyhting. And actually, I believe Jesus existed because I'm a Christian. I believe he did all those things. It simply strengthens the fact and I debate this because most historians believe/accept Jesus's existence.

9) rational? You have to remember they were at a disadvantage that technology wasn't as advanced as it is now. Regardless, I believe they wrote down what they saw, an respected historians I doubt would/could lie on the issue.

10) Paul referenced mainly the crucifixion and last supper of Christ, yet apparently also met with Peter. Also, Pauls purpose was mainly to teach his law.

11) It's presumed because we do know of their persecution tht they started as a minority but spread. I do know we know little back then. Although to be fair, the Jews were noted as being good with oral tradition.

12) Do I know? No, do I believe the Bible is mostly accurate? Yes. Do I believe certain aspects were exagerated? Yes. If a moving star was meant for a select few people, then it was probably only noticable to them. I dont believe the darkness was worldwide, because there would be no way for the author to know. earthquakes happen all the time and the dead rising from the grave can be interpreted in many ways. I dont think they were actual zombies, for your reason and the fact I dont see the point of it. Personally, I think it was the start of the harrowing of hell....but thats just me. Of course, keep in mind, I can write a factual story about Bush's reign as President. Then people can add a bunch of magical shit to it, and there would still be truth due to what I wrote, just simply not the whole truth.


13) It did, thats correct. It would just seem unlikely to prior to it happening. The Jews aren't very easy on attempts at reforming the religion in any way. Hell, they still aren't. Although back then murder was acceptable.

14) True, except I am arguing the history of a person within the religion, not the actual religion. I can't prove Christianity is true obviously, even if Jesus was word-for-word the same as he was shown in the Bible. You forget most religions though are created in longer periods of time after they happened. You can use with with genesis. Even if Moses wrote it, its too far of a time for him to be believable in knowing about it. Yet it can work that way because no one else would know either.

[maj1n]

1) Yet you speak to me as if you know, which implies you know Jesus did not exists, which means you have to prove his existence which common sense shows he most likely did exist. I was speaking of college, by the way, not high school.

College for us is high school.

As to proving he did not exist? the biblical jesus did not, no one can be born of a virgin, nor is any of the geological or astrological events recorded, nor is there evidence of.

That alone means the biblical jesus did not exist (the jesus of the bible).


2) I know, thats why I said we know one of Josephus's comments have been edited. The comment suggested Josephus was a christian, which means the writing we have today on that was not the same when Origen wrote it. I know it was written 50 years after his death. But that goes to show Jesus was believed to have existed that early. Josephus was also a staunch jew, so even the idea of Jesus not existing would have been appealing.

Indeed, which is why many people consider Josephus' account unreliable, since his writings have him believing in Jesus as the christ.

Jesus being believed 50 years after his death is of no use, people believe in the 1950's Roswell incident as aliens, even less then 50 years after 1950.


3) I know, because it was becoming out of hand and would probably have lead to violence. Yet the council of Niceae showed an earlier date of people believing Jesus was divine. It was simply that a peice of theology became popular.

Which means there are competing beliefs, and we cannot verify any of them as true.


5) Unless I'm missing something, then it shouldn't be. Because the source says only one other guy referenced it and it(not Eusebius), I do remember Eusebius denounced another act of pilate though, but you have to also remember there are multiple acts of pilate.

There is no way to discern there being 'other acts of Pontius Pilate' all we know is Eusebius considered it the 'acts of pontius pilate' flawed, since it got Jesus' crucifixion wrong.


6) Virgins can't give birth.....unless there is a God and he makes it happen(this is why its so annoying debating with Atheists, they are too closed minded to even the possibility). anyway, I heard somewhere that virgins can give birth(although the explanation was logical). You ignore the fact that historians back then had little to go to on the idea of past events like Hercules, which no one would know during his time. Do you know that most of OUR accepted history is quite fictional. We believe in a book written 100 years after Ceasar is correct. So if you really want to slam historians of the time that much, then we can't really accept any peice of history can we?

I can accept Caesar as existing because we have statues and coins dated to when he was supposed to be alive, and many accounts of him corroborrate with archaeology.

The same cannot be said for Jesus, there is not even any description of his physical appearance.

And no, i don't believe a virgin birth happened, i don't subscribe to magic.


7) I dont believe in those things either...except if God makes it happen. When you say "based on Jesus", to what degree? I am saying the life and teachings were most likely similar to Jesus's, its just the more.....impossible stuff thats questionable. Do you agree with this or not?

You cannot objectively say 'this part of jesus' life happened' and 'this part did not' arbitrarily, we know many parts flat out could not have happened, we do not know if any of the other parts indeed did happen.


8) The Bible never states the world to be flat, please try and post certain verses because they are all VISIONS. Yes, I believe God can do anyhting. And actually, I believe Jesus existed because I'm a Christian. I believe he did all those things. It simply strengthens the fact and I debate this because most historians believe/accept Jesus's existence.

And there i see your inherent bias ' I believe Jesus existed because I'm a Christian'.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
-Matthew 4:8

we also note that the Tower of Babel was supposed to reach heaven, it was always thought that the earth was flat and heaven was above it (also it was believed rain came from heaven).


9) rational? You have to remember they were at a disadvantage that technology wasn't as advanced as it is now. Regardless, I believe they wrote down what they saw, an respected historians I doubt would/could lie on the issue.

I don't think a persons words weigh more then physical impossibilities, a solar eclipse cannot happen during a full moon, anyone claiming this happened either lied or got it wrong.


10) Paul referenced mainly the crucifixion and last supper of Christ, yet apparently also met with Peter. Also, Pauls purpose was mainly to teach his law.

Actually Pauls purpose was to convince Jews to become Christians, his silence is taken as lack of knowledge of Jesus' early life, and his writings come after the Gospels (tentative dating).


11) It's presumed because we do know of their persecution tht they started as a minority but spread. I do know we know little back then. Although to be fair, the Jews were noted as being good with oral tradition.

Indeed, we also know that early Christians had completely different beliefs then current Christians, Jesus, for example, was supposed to have died on a tree (as per Acts) not a cross, and he was supposed to be born from the seed of david himself, which he wasn't.

It is very realistically possible that the crucifixion was an invention too.

You might like to note that Ireneaus (early Church father historian) thought Jesus died under Claudius, 50 years old, he also says he got this information from the Apostle Paul.

12) Do I know? No, do I believe the Bible is mostly accurate? Yes. Do I believe certain aspects were exagerated? Yes. If a moving star was meant for a select few people, then it was probably only noticable to them. I dont believe the darkness was worldwide, because there would be no way for the author to know. earthquakes happen all the time and the dead rising from the grave can be interpreted in many ways. I dont think they were actual zombies, for your reason and the fact I dont see the point of it. Personally, I think it was the start of the harrowing of hell....but thats just me. Of course, keep in mind, I can write a factual story about Bush's reign as President. Then people can add a bunch of magical shit to it, and there would still be truth due to what I wrote, just simply not the whole truth.

and here lies your logical flaw, you admit some parts of the bible are not true (probably because their too fantastic and magical sounding) but you cannot then arbitrarily say this other part is true, you must have evidence for it.


14) True, except I am arguing the history of a person within the religion, not the actual religion. I can't prove Christianity is true obviously, even if Jesus was word-for-word the same as he was shown in the Bible. You forget most religions though are created in longer periods of time after they happened. You can use with with genesis. Even if Moses wrote it, its too far of a time for him to be believable in knowing about it. Yet it can work that way because no one else would know either.
Indeed, it is of course, possible that there are remnants of some truth to Jesus' life despite much of it being true, but a possibility is not fact, and it is not rational to believe it is true, unless there is evidence for it.

[Unnamedpoet]

Yes, three different holy scriptures talking about Jesus(PBUH) is not proof enough. Seriously, why are you arguing solely for the sake of the argument?

[Saufsoldat]

Yes, three different holy scriptures talking about Jesus is not proof enough. Seriously, why are you arguing solely for the sake of the argument?

Cos that's what we do in the NF Café :laugh

[Unnamedpoet]

Cos that's what we do in the NF Café :laugh

If you must know, I was being sarcastic in the first sentence of my previous post. If you still want to stand your ground, then I think we have made progress. lol

[maj1n]

Yes, three different holy scriptures talking about Jesus is not proof enough. Seriously, why are you arguing solely for the sake of the argument?
Because i don't believe in vampires despite them existing in numerous different cultures and texts, or of dragons despite them existing in numerous different cultures and texts.

[Unnamedpoet]

Because i don't believe in vampires despite them existing in numerous different cultures and texts, or of dragons despite them existing in numerous different cultures and texts.

There is a difference between holy scriptures and folk-lores.

[maj1n]

There is a difference between holy scriptures and folk-lores.
Really? so there was a worldwide darkness for 3 days when jesus died? he was born of a virgin? earthquakes happened when he died? zombies rose and went into the town when he died? moses really did make a boat with 2 of every animals? a staff can really transform into a snake? the voice of a certain man could literally break the walls of a fortified village, angelic trumpets will herald the end of the world? the ultimate evil has 10 heads? the first man was made from dust? the first woman was made from the mans rib? the first man used to be immortal? people can arise from the dead like Lazarus?

Yeh, definitely there is a difference i see:nuts

[Unnamedpoet]

And I suppose the world isn't round... nor does it revolve around the sun, oh, and the universe isn't expanding.

[maj1n]

And I suppose the world isn't round... nor does it revolve around the sun, oh, and the universe isn't expanding.
According to the bible the world is flat, the heavens pour rain onto the world, as to the universe, it does not really say.

So, its different from folk tales?

[Unnamedpoet]

Well, I cannot lie to you nor can I support something I myself find contradictory. However, there is some truth in Bible too even though it may have been amended way too many times.

In retrospect, Bible doesn't actually say that the world is flat.

[maj1n]

Well, I cannot lie to you nor can I support something I myself find contradictory. However, there is some truth in Bible too even though it may have been amended way too many times.

Indeed there may be, but you cannot assume something as true, and the jesus story has so many impossibilities that it is incredibly hard if not impossible to discern any truths.


In retrospect, Bible doesn't actually say that the world is flat.
It definitely implies it, apparently when the devil brought Jesus to an incredibly high mountain, he could see every kingdom in the world, same when with David when he had a dream.

[Unnamedpoet]

Indeed there may be, but you cannot assume something as true, and the jesus story has so many impossibilities that it is incredibly hard if not impossible to discern any truths.


It definitely implies it, apparently when the devil brought Jesus to an incredibly high mountain, he could see every kingdom in the world, same when with David when he had a dream.

I understand where you are coming from, if I put myself in your shoes I probably would doubt such incidents as well. However, you simply can't undermine the unexplainable phenomena that occur around us all the time. It would be hard to believe in such incidents (as in Jesus's (PBUH) "story") but at least accept that there is a possibility that it may have been true. What I'm trying to say is don't conclude it as untrue because you cannot explain it. Lack of evidence is not lack of existence. No offense intended.

And I agree with the second part, which is why I said in retrospect. Still it does not actually say "the world is flat". Injeel, as how we call it, in my opinion has been changed too many times, like I said before, and I think this is the reason for the discrepancies in it. However, we are now digressing so I will stop.

[GrimaH]

you simply can't undermine the unexplainable phenomena that occur around us all the time.

It isn't exactly the most compelling reason to make us all go "OMG IT MUST BE GODZZZZ" either.
I see you should know that already though.
Oh, and you can point out a lot of "Bible hinted it" stuff that all contradict each other. I don't see it as any more than just the legend of a good man fighting against the odds, but fictionalised way out of proportion.

[Jaejoong]

Wait what?
Atheists accept Jesus but not God? I think I'm missing something as an Atheist. As for Muhammed, he's like Jesus to me. They were just people who lived and died.

[Unnamedpoet]

It isn't exactly the most compelling reason to make us all go "OMG IT MUST BE GODZZZZ" either.
I see you should know that already though.
Oh, and you can point out a lot of "Bible hinted it" stuff that all contradict each other. I don't see it as any more than just the legend of a good man fighting against the odds, but fictionalised way out of proportion.

First of all, I am not an athiest, but you already knew. Second of all, the point of my post was not to prove the existence of God, nor was it intended towards you. Regarding your Bible comment, it was not me who said it. I am not a Christian nor have I read Bible extensively enough to make an informed comment. You could see it as what ever way you wanted to, I will just disregard it as the by-product of a rusty brain which cannot comprehend.

[GrimaH]

Well I had nothing better to do. I don't see how entering an existing debate is proof of a rusty mind.

[MartialHorror]

1) Repeating points I've already explained are irrelevent isn't going to make me change my mind.

2) The incident in Roswell could be explained, bad comparison. And I also told you there were two verses in Josephus's account, one that scholars believe has been edited, the other genuine(where he is talking about James the just)

3) Except we have the Bible, which basically does show how the earliest christians felt about Christ, even if he did not exist.

5) And this would be something Justin would have known, and possibly even the Romans. Justin spoke of it as a historical document, not a gospel, which apparently was considered worth looking at even by them. So unless you have proof this is the same text he was refering too, you can't use it to help you. Especially being we know at least one other "acts of pilate" existed.

6) Yes, but do you believe in all the supposedly recorded events in his life?

7) x

8) The first is visionary, and the second was metaphorical(or the people who were building it just thought it did). And I can retort you are just as biased in your anti-Christian/Atheist(?) view. I also stated apparently most historians/scholars agree with me, so its not just my bias.

9) Alright, if thats what you say.

10) Your guessing there was a lack of knowledge on Jesus's life. He simply preached morales and the nature of Jesus/God to Jews and Romans.

11) being crucified on a tree is a jehovah witness belief. Er, wasn't Ireneaus born like 50-60 years after Paul died? Where in acts does it say this? Actually, Jesus was related to Jesus. One of the timelines was supposed to be Mary's, but due to women not generally being mentioned in timelines of the time when she married Joseph, he was officially adopted into her family and became part of the timeline.

12) No, the difference between you and I is that I keep an open-mind. You don't, you think you are 100% right when you yourself are not an expert and most historians/scholars disagree with you anyway. Oh, on the zombie bit, it probably wasn't that large scale. Only Matthew mentions it. Mark mentions the temple cloth ripping, Luke and John don't mention any miracles. So lets presume that the gospels are all cannon, which means whoever passed down the stories either saw or didn't see these miracles. And being little was wrote down, whoever claimed they saw zombies(or ghosts) would be considered crazy, ect,ect. I heard it could possibly mean they just were going to heaven(since they were holy people)

13) lol, I hate repeating myself here......but "not according to most historians/scholars..." who believe there is enough fact to presume he existed, or was based heavily on a real person.

[maj1n]

2) The incident in Roswell could be explained, bad comparison. And I also told you there were two verses in Josephus's account, one that scholars believe has been edited, the other genuine(where he is talking about James the just)

The Roswell example is to show how your comment how it was believed (the jesus story) 50 years after his death is of little merit.


3) Except we have the Bible, which basically does show how the earliest christians felt about Christ, even if he did not exist.

Indeed, and Matthew and Luke's message of Jesus is opposite of Pauls (he was supposed to uphold all the Old Testament Laws) and he was supposed to be hanged on a tree, according to Acts.


5) And this would be something Justin would have known, and possibly even the Romans. Justin spoke of it as a historical document, not a gospel, which apparently was considered worth looking at even by them. So unless you have proof this is the same text he was refering too, you can't use it to help you. Especially being we know at least one other "acts of pilate" existed.

He called it the Acts of Pontius Pilate, Eusebius calls it the acts of pontius Pilate, there is no distinction here of 'gospel' and 'historical document', all christians believed their gospels were historical documents anyway.


6) Yes, but do you believe in all the supposedly recorded events in his life?

Only if there is evidence of it.


8) The first is visionary, and the second was metaphorical(or the people who were building it just thought it did). And I can retort you are just as biased in your anti-Christian/Atheist(?) view. I also stated apparently most historians/scholars agree with me, so its not just my bias.

I don't really care if its not your bias or if more people believe in your belief, i don't subscribe to the notion that the earth is flat is a valid belief when alot of people believed it.


10) Your guessing there was a lack of knowledge on Jesus's life. He simply preached morales and the nature of Jesus/God to Jews and Romans.

No, he very clearly identified with the later events in Jesus' life such as the crucifixion, his silence of his earlier life, especially where it would support many of his arguments, most likely meant he did not know.


11) being crucified on a tree is a jehovah witness belief. Er, wasn't Ireneaus born like 50-60 years after Paul died? Where in acts does it say this? Actually, Jesus was related to Jesus. One of the timelines was supposed to be Mary's, but due to women not generally being mentioned in timelines of the time when she married Joseph, he was officially adopted into her family and became part of the timeline.

Being crucified on a tree is in Acts, in the Bible, Ireneaus belief, even though he is a church father, implies there were differing accounts of Jesus' life, of the seed of David, no, there is no way it could be said to be Mary, no evidence supports that.


12) No, the difference between you and I is that I keep an open-mind. You don't, you think you are 100% right when you yourself are not an expert and most historians/scholars disagree with you anyway. Oh, on the zombie bit, it probably wasn't that large scale. Only Matthew mentions it. Mark mentions the temple cloth ripping, Luke and John don't mention any miracles. So lets presume that the gospels are all cannon, which means whoever passed down the stories either saw or didn't see these miracles. And being little was wrote down, whoever claimed they saw zombies(or ghosts) would be considered crazy, ect,ect. I heard it could possibly mean they just were going to heaven(since they were holy people)

The difference between you and me is, i only believe it when there is evidence of it, you believe it only if it has not been disproved, which is actually a logical fallacy.


13) lol, I hate repeating myself here......but "not according to most historians/scholars..." who believe there is enough fact to presume he existed, or was based heavily on a real person.
Funny how if this is such a mainstream belief, the argument for it, ie the evidence, is virtually non-existant.

The flat earth used to be believed too, do you think it was right to believe it back then?

[MartialHorror]

1) Except there was always an explanation, only conspiracy theorists believed that. I don't see the comparison. If the Jewish/Roman Government responded with an explanation at the time and the only people endorsing Christs divinity were known for declaring people as messiah's then you would have a point. Instead, for this to work the Government would have to never mention Roswald, nor any source mention it.

2) Where does it say that in acts? He was supposed to uphold all the OT laws? Paul or Jesus. Keep in mind, Jesus criticized many Jewish traditions and so did Paul.

3) Except as I said, there were more well-known gospels than that Justin could have mentioned. Yet he used "acts of Pilate" as if that would be enough to appeal to them. He knew who he was talking too, and he would know mentioning the gospels would not be enough. Keep in mind, he only was mentioning that one, he could have referenced others at the time time, yet singled out that one, implying it was considered to be a historical document. And I know that guy said that, we simply dont know if it is the same one.

4) Except there is little-to-no evidense for most history in general.

5) Alot of people only believed it due to popular myths at the time. Once again, this logic can be reversed on you by saying "just because most scientists accept evolution, doesn't make it so".

6) Your still guessing. The crucifixion is one of the most important aspects of christianity and its purpose IS the most important aspect of Christianity. So its perfectly natural Paul would mention it. Saying just because he never mentioned his earlier life, which wasn't what Paul's teachings were meant to do anyway, shows he didn't know much is PURE speculation. This is what I cant stand about you and most atheists, you don't know the difference between speculation and fact. You say there HAS to be evidense to prove something, yet you have none to support this. that is a double standard.

7) Here you go with evidense again, yet to are guessing in the previous point. You say Paul didn't know about Jesus that well because of his silence, and I say its common knowledge women were kept out of official timelines during the time so its likely Joseph was replacing her in one of the timelines. At least I have a basis, yours doesn't.

8) A guy who considers his speculation as fact yet denounces my speculation as false has no right to be commenting on logical fallacies.

9) Whats even more funny is I've posted more proof than you. Your biggest proof is "Virgin births can't happen, so.....", while I've explained its very unlikely a fictional person could become so huge this early. Do you know one of the most common traits of religion? It's time-jumps. People can say "this many years" ago God created the earth and say "God came to him and said this" to create a religion. No one else can challenge the statement because they wouldn't know, they would simply believe him or not. Its why most religions say "in the future" without a direct date because when the date comes around and nothing has happened, the religion ends. So its incredibly unlikely someone would be made up that quickly when there would be people who would be able to disprove this. It defies all common sense and "logic" that this can happen. There would NEED to be a historical person they could build upon at the least for it to survive.

[maj1n]

1) Except there was always an explanation, only conspiracy theorists believed that. I don't see the comparison. If the Jewish/Roman Government responded with an explanation at the time and the only people endorsing Christs divinity were known for declaring people as messiah's then you would have a point. Instead, for this to work the Government would have to never mention Roswald, nor any source mention it.

What are you talking about? i gave you a Roswald example to show you that even something believed 50 years after it is supposed to happen, is of no merit, and do note that the Military denies the Roswell incident, but people still believe it.


2) Where does it say that in acts? He was supposed to uphold all the OT laws? Paul or Jesus. Keep in mind, Jesus criticized many Jewish traditions and so did Paul.

In both matthew and Luke, jesus is portrayed to uphold all Old Testament laws.

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
-Matthew 5:18-19

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
-Matthew 5:17

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."
-Luke 16:17

Acts has jesus hanged on a tree.


3) Except as I said, there were more well-known gospels than that Justin could have mentioned. Yet he used "acts of Pilate" as if that would be enough to appeal to them. He knew who he was talking too, and he would know mentioning the gospels would not be enough. Keep in mind, he only was mentioning that one, he could have referenced others at the time time, yet singled out that one, implying it was considered to be a historical document. And I know that guy said that, we simply dont know if it is the same one.

Your making far too many assumptions here, Justin mentions Acts of Pilate, Eusebius mentions the Acts of Pilate to be flawed since it contradicts the Gospels, it is not reliable.

As to it being a historical document, what exactly are you trying to argue? there is no distinction in antiquity of a 'historical' document, and gospels, the gospel by definition is believed to be historical by the religion it belongs to, because the people believe it is true.


4) Except there is little-to-no evidense for most history in general.

Which is why it is wrong for so many to believe it because other people say so.


5) Alot of people only believed it due to popular myths at the time. Once again, this logic can be reversed on you by saying "just because most scientists accept evolution, doesn't make it so".

Science supports evolution because there is evidence of it, this is part of its most basic structure, it does not support it because most scientists think so.


6) Your still guessing. The crucifixion is one of the most important aspects of christianity and its purpose IS the most important aspect of Christianity. So its perfectly natural Paul would mention it. Saying just because he never mentioned his earlier life, which wasn't what Paul's teachings were meant to do anyway, shows he didn't know much is PURE speculation. This is what I cant stand about you and most atheists, you don't know the difference between speculation and fact. You say there HAS to be evidense to prove something, yet you have none to support this. that is a double standard.

The crucifixion most likely did not happen, firstly, there is no record of it despite it apparently being seen by all the scribes, it contradicts known roman crucifixion procedure, during a crucifixion, NO ONE is allowed near the person, because they may try taking them down, yet we have Jesus' closest followers actually touch him.

Not all Christians believed Jesus was crucified, Ireneaus didn't in 'Against Heresies'.


7) Here you go with evidense again, yet to are guessing in the previous point. You say Paul didn't know about Jesus that well because of his silence, and I say its common knowledge women were kept out of official timelines during the time so its likely Joseph was replacing her in one of the timelines. At least I have a basis, yours doesn't.

Have you actually read the Gospels? the genealogies given for Mary and Joseph contradict, they are unreliable.

As to Paul, i am inferring that his silence on Jesus' life is remarkable considering he was preaching about jesus, this suggests he probably did not know much of Jesus' early life.


8) A guy who considers his speculation as fact yet denounces my speculation as false has no right to be commenting on logical fallacies.

You'd be wrong there, reread my post and get back to me when you work out what 'fact' actually means, and why i did not actually say that.

You are saying that the lack of evidence of any link to David through Jesus' Genealogy is because it is through Mary and they don't mention women, but here you are not even arguing with any merit, you are explicitly saying a lack of evidence proves it is true, which is not rational.


9) Whats even more funny is I've posted more proof than you. Your biggest proof is "Virgin births can't happen, so.....", while I've explained its very unlikely a fictional person could become so huge this early.

what do you mean 'this early'? do you seriously believe that christianity was 'huge' after Jesus died? it was a minority, it was not large till about the end of the 2nd century.


Do you know one of the most common traits of religion? It's time-jumps. People can say "this many years" ago God created the earth and say "God came to him and said this" to create a religion. No one else can challenge the statement because they wouldn't know, they would simply believe him or not. Its why most religions say "in the future" without a direct date because when the date comes around and nothing has happened, the religion ends. So its incredibly unlikely someone would be made up that quickly when there would be people who would be able to disprove this. It defies all common sense and "logic" that this can happen. There would NEED to be a historical person they could build upon at the least for it to survive.
Lol? do you actually believed that, in antiquity, people recorded perfectly everything that happened in any society? so they can say 'but this didnt happen?' no, they do not.

Furthermore, the mention of Jesus' crucifixion happened at the least a full 50 years after he died, being lenient there, by that time, almost everyone who may have saw him would have been dead.

Furthermore, many early Christians gave differing accounts of Jesus, some did not believe he was crucified.

Furthermore, you might like to read on how it is credibly hard to prove a negative.

[MartialHorror]

1) Actually, most people don't believe in Roswell these days.

2) Okay, you posted commonly known verses. Now post some of the verses from Acts supporting your claims.

3) Alright, lets say Justin said "The gospel of Mathew describes the crucifixion." The problem is, is that non-Christians would look at it as simply a gospel text and ignore it. Yet he only uses "The acts of Pilate" as if non-believers would accept it as well. If I were to prove Pilate existed, I would point out Josephus's reference(or the name recently found) over the Bible because I know only Christians would believe it. So as I said, if it was just a basic gospel, why would Justin only point that out with so many others to choose from? Also, its believed the current acts of pilate was written as a fiction, which is what I believe the other guy was refering too. So if it was written that way, then Justin would not be referencing it.

4) So we should ignore all possible history then we can't flat out prove?

5) Except who gathers the evidence? You forget these things are proven through experimments and the likes. Gregor Mendel was a biologist who discovered a shitload about plants, yet has come under criticism as of late for basically seeing what he wanted to see. Perhaps its the same with most scientists. I don't believe this, keep in mind, but even though I believe in evolution I don't put much faith in it.

6) True, except I can easily say Jesus was an exception. I doubt a bunch of badass Roman guards would have trouble holding off a few jews. Also, Jesus's crucifixion was described as if they were trying to humiliate him. Anyway, records could easily be lost. We know nothing of Pilate other than he existed. The only source about him other than the Bible is Josephus's comments. So either Roman records weren't very detailed or they were all lost.

7) But for the last time, Paul was preaching about morales WAY over Jesus's life. Jesus came to him spiritually and gave him the law, which is what Paul wrote. Jesus possibly predicts Paul in an earlier verse which states he would discuss the nature of Jesus/God, not the life. I've read the Bible. There are two similar timelines(one more detailed than the other) and another that contradicts. I said Mary wouldn't be used in a timeline, so when she married Joseph he would have been adopted into it.

8) I'm not saying it is proven true, I am saying it can be easily explained.

9) lol, let me rephrase myself. Christians weren't huge, but weren't quite small either. Christians were apparently significant enough to become blamed for Nero's fire.

10) Early Christian accounts, like the gnostic gospels? Which mostly have been proven as fake anyway? Yes, anyone would have known would be dead and Christians all know and accept this. But it isn't difficult for someone to tell someone else(remember, the Jews were good at oral tradition) who would do research.

[maj1n]

2) Okay, you posted commonly known verses. Now post some of the verses from Acts supporting your claims.

Acts has jesus hanged from a tree

The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
-Acts 5:30

We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree
-Acts 10:39

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed
-1 Peter 2:24


3) Alright, lets say Justin said "The gospel of Mathew describes the crucifixion." The problem is, is that non-Christians would look at it as simply a gospel text and ignore it. Yet he only uses "The acts of Pilate" as if non-believers would accept it as well. If I were to prove Pilate existed, I would point out Josephus's reference(or the name recently found) over the Bible because I know only Christians would believe it. So as I said, if it was just a basic gospel, why would Justin only point that out with so many others to choose from? Also, its believed the current acts of pilate was written as a fiction, which is what I believe the other guy was refering too. So if it was written that way, then Justin would not be referencing it.

Your making an assumption here again, all gospels, back then, were not considered purely mythical, but akin to 'this guy said he saw', Justin say's the Acts of Pontius Pilate support him, he is essentially saying 'what i say, this guy also said by writing in this text'.

We know the acts of Pontius Pilate are flawed, it is unreliable, and if you, as you say, believe the only Acts of Pilate we reliably know of is fiction, you cannot under any rules of logic say a totally unknown text of the same name is reliable, you do not know its contents.


4) So we should ignore all possible history then we can't flat out prove?

You shouldn't believe in any historical event that has no credible evidence supporting it.


5) Except who gathers the evidence? You forget these things are proven through experimments and the likes. Gregor Mendel was a biologist who discovered a shitload about plants, yet has come under criticism as of late for basically seeing what he wanted to see. Perhaps its the same with most scientists. I don't believe this, keep in mind, but even though I believe in evolution I don't put much faith in it.

You cannot prove anything in science, your using 'prove' wrongly, in science it has a very formal meaning, which amounts to 'it cannot under any circumstances be wrong' which is derived from mathematical proofs.

Scientific theories are considered as accurate an explanation of physical phenomena because evidence supports it, but no scientific theory is said to be immune to being wrong (ie proved).


6) True, except I can easily say Jesus was an exception. I doubt a bunch of badass Roman guards would have trouble holding off a few jews. Also, Jesus's crucifixion was described as if they were trying to humiliate him. Anyway, records could easily be lost. We know nothing of Pilate other than he existed. The only source about him other than the Bible is Josephus's comments. So either Roman records weren't very detailed or they were all lost.

'you can easily say Jesus was an exception', this is called making up a bullshit excuse with no evidence, you can't even appeal to the balance of probabilities, since you are saying it is an exception.

As to Roman records, they are in fact quite reliable, especially concerning bureaucracy, and the total lack of record of an event which is supposed to have been witnessed by 'all the scribes' is too remarkable.


7) But for the last time, Paul was preaching about morales WAY over Jesus's life. Jesus came to him spiritually and gave him the law, which is what Paul wrote. Jesus possibly predicts Paul in an earlier verse which states he would discuss the nature of Jesus/God, not the life. I've read the Bible. There are two similar timelines(one more detailed than the other) and another that contradicts. I said Mary wouldn't be used in a timeline, so when she married Joseph he would have been adopted into it.

Paul was speaking to Jews, there is very little sense in just discussing morals of jesus to Jews since by definition they did not believe in Jesus, Paul was clearly trying to convert them by saying Jesus did happen and this is how you should act.

As to Mary, your wrong, there are 3 genealogies (not timelines) the lesser known one is in Ezra.

As to being the seed of David, your making a total assumption, essentially this is your argument 'we do not know if perhaps Mary was somehow linked to David, there is no evidence, we do not know if somehow this was omitted because genealogies usually followed patriarchal lines, but it is true nonetheless'.

That is flawed reasoning.


8) I'm not saying it is proven true, I am saying it can be easily explained.

Everything can be easily explained, i can say all the fossils that show evolution to be true, or in fact all evidence, is us being fooled by God.

But you wouldn't believe it, why?


9) lol, let me rephrase myself. Christians weren't huge, but weren't quite small either. Christians were apparently significant enough to become blamed for Nero's fire.

YOu do realise that the persecution of christians by Nero is most likely a lie, there is no contemporary evidence for it, until centuries later.

As to the fire, there is no way you can ascertain the size of any group by a fire starting, even one man can start a fire.


10) Early Christian accounts, like the gnostic gospels? Which mostly have been proven as fake anyway? Yes, anyone would have known would be dead and Christians all know and accept this. But it isn't difficult for someone to tell someone else(remember, the Jews were good at oral tradition) who would do research.
There is no Jew writer mentioning Jesus when Jesus was alive, and your appeal to oral tradition is flawed anyway, since the prevalent oral stories were totally myths.

Nor is your argument of much worth, oral traditions can be lies anyway, they are not credible.

What your saying is akin to say, in a court, a witness says 'well i know a person who heard someone tell him this happened' his testimony would be thrown out.

[MartialHorror]

1) This stumped me, so I had to look it up. It turns out the greek word used for tree here is different than the word used for tree in other parts of the new testament. The word they use is translated to "Tree of life", which early Christians often equivicated with the cross. Strange, an instrument of death being considered the tree of life. Also, you just used one translation. Other translations often use cross as well.

2) We know the current one is flawed, which most scholars dont believe is the same one Justin was refering too. And you completely ignored my post, Justin was using it as if they would accept it as accurate, in contrast to other gospels. lol, are you saying non-christians at the time would consider christian texts to be accurate?

3)x

4) Alright.

5) Yet we know little about Pilate. We have more Jewish records of Pilate than roman records. You would think that would be something they could keep track of. I'm really not that familiar with how Romans kept their records but if we have nothing on him either they weren't very good at it or the records have been lost.

6) lol, let me rephrase, Paul was explaining the nature of Christ. The divinity part, and how we should act according to him. Anyway, Mathew and Luke disagree on the genealogy of Jesus. My theory(which is many others theory) explains this quite nicely. It fits the tradition and explains the geneology. It sounds more reasonable than claiming "just because Paul never spoke of Jesus's early life, he clearly did not know". Arguments of silence are flawed arguments, you know.

7) Er, you know I accept Evolution as fact though...right?

8) Er, you are the only person I have ever heard say this. Tacitus mentions that Christians were blamed for the fire, even though he didn't think they did it. This wasn't centuries later, because Tacitus would have been 8 when it actually happened.

9) You are comparing the Jews to everyone else when it comes to oral traditions. Sure, they can be lying but when the result is being executed or persecuted for a lie........is just hard to swallow. And I should mention some people believe Josephus's comment that is believed to have been edited think it was what he originally wrote down. I say this because this would be a manner of minority vs majority, which reflects this debate as to where Jesus existed. You only take one side there because it supports you.

If anyone else sees this, I wont be able to respond to the other thread until tonight.

[maj1n]

1) This stumped me, so I had to look it up. It turns out the greek word used for tree here is different than the word used for tree in other parts of the new testament. The word they use is translated to "Tree of life", which early Christians often equivicated with the cross. Strange, an instrument of death being considered the tree of life. Also, you just used one translation. Other translations often use cross as well.

It is only tree, and Acts does not mention the cross at all.
There is, even in the bible, contradictions to the way jesus died.


2) We know the current one is flawed, which most scholars dont believe is the same one Justin was refering too. And you completely ignored my post, Justin was using it as if they would accept it as accurate, in contrast to other gospels. lol, are you saying non-christians at the time would consider christian texts to be accurate?

All gospels are believed by their adherents to be historical records, i have seen in this thread Christians saying the Bible is enough evidence for Jesus.


5) Yet we know little about Pilate. We have more Jewish records of Pilate than roman records. You would think that would be something they could keep track of. I'm really not that familiar with how Romans kept their records but if we have nothing on him either they weren't very good at it or the records have been lost.

Romans keep records of people stations (bereaucracy), they do not always detail any particular persons life, Pilate is hardly mentioned, and if he really did kill Jesus Christ, someone who apparently stirred up all the Jews in Rome, and his crucifixion was witnessed by all the scribes followed by natural disasters, there should have been more records.

And why does Acts and Peter in the Bible have jesus hanged on a tree?


6) lol, let me rephrase, Paul was explaining the nature of Christ. The divinity part, and how we should act according to him. Anyway, Mathew and Luke disagree on the genealogy of Jesus. My theory(which is many others theory) explains this quite nicely. It fits the tradition and explains the geneology. It sounds more reasonable than claiming "just because Paul never spoke of Jesus's early life, he clearly did not know". Arguments of silence are flawed arguments, you know.

Indeed, and if Paul talks about how we should act like Jesus, he should mention Jesus' life.

As to your 'theory' you might like to think about the difference between a possibility with no evidence, and one with evidence.

You flat out should not believe in anything without evidence, even if it is possible, the devil could have mated with Mary, this is possible, and as likely as your theory of their genealogy.


8) Er, you are the only person I have ever heard say this. Tacitus mentions that Christians were blamed for the fire, even though he didn't think they did it. This wasn't centuries later, because Tacitus would have been 8 when it actually happened.

Tacitus' work we do not have, it is only referenced by someone else, a LONG time after Tacitus died, and by a church father no less.

Josephus: he was actually in Rome when it happened, he remarks of no christian persecution of the fire, and in fact, remarks that other historians (in particular Tacitus) have a vendetta against Nero, this is well known and evidenced.

Plutarch: also lived during Tacitus, mentions no fire.

Epictetus: mentions nothing either, despite being affiliated with a 'secretary' of Nero.

Suetonius: mentions the fire and no christians connected to it, was alive during Tacitus.

Philostratus: had a vendetta against Nero, wrote lengthy books on his crimes, but mentions none of christian persecution.

The problem is that not only does Tacitus' account become so fantastic that it is bullshit, apparently the Christians were dressed in dogs skins, they were taken by Nero and used as living torches, and he fed many of them to lions.

This incredibly persecution should have been noted by someone, we also note that our evidence of Tacitus is FROM a church father many years (around 400) after it was supposedly written, it could very well be a forgery.


9) You are comparing the Jews to everyone else when it comes to oral traditions. Sure, they can be lying but when the result is being executed or persecuted for a lie........is just hard to swallow. And I should mention some people believe Josephus's comment that is believed to have been edited think it was what he originally wrote down. I say this because this would be a manner of minority vs majority, which reflects this debate as to where Jesus existed. You only take one side there because it supports you.

The problem is that the Church went into a rather large campaign of creating forgeries and interpolations to strengthen their religious claims, they made up alot of christian persecution stories, in particular Eusebius promoted LYING for the christian faith.

[MartialHorror]

1) Alright, I'll presume you simply did not understand me. First off, you are looking at only one translation. About half of the translations say tree, the other half says cross. But here is my key point, The Bible was NOT written in english. One of the problems with the Bible is that some words don't translate in the exact way and it leeds to some confusion. Example, there was debate if Jesus had a homosexual relationship with John(The desciple whom he "loved"). The problem is there are multiple words for love in greek, and the exact word for romantic love was not used(it was devine love I think). Here, the word used for "tree" in the greek bible isn't used in this passage. The word they use is actually the same word they use for the tree of life. Early Christians hymns and records often say that the cross is the tree of life, because through Jesus(who died on the cross) people may have everlasting life.

2) Then answer this, why did he only use the gospel of Pilate? Why not Mark, Luke, Matt or a more popular one? I am trying to say that Justin was usng the acts of Pilate to appeal to the Romans. He didn't use Luke or another because they would just be considered a religious text, while the acts of pilate would be more likely accepted as fact by them.

3) Man, were all the scribes bored or something? What exactly do they ever have to right about if they don't give detailed events of the persons acts? All we know about Pilate from the Romans is his name.....which they found scribbled somewhere. So either the scribes in Rome weren't very good to begin with, or the records have been lost.

4) The idea of the devin mating with mary has nothing to back up its claim. As I've stated, women were not included in official timelines. Their husbands were often adopted into them. So if there are two official timelines that contradict, its easily explianed that one is Mary's because its logical. And your Paul statement is still assumption. You are comparing Paul to you and what you would have spoken about if you were him. Arguments of silence are FLAWED arguments.

5) You are ignoring the fact Tacticus's comments were very negative towards Christians, which is why people generally don't believe it was re-edited by a Christian. You forget also Christians weren't popular in general. Some historians at the time thought Nero caused it anyway. You're also using the argument of silence again, which is still flawed. You are once again mistake your assumption/speculation for fact. Suetonius mentions Christins being persecuted at this time(although doesn't mention the fire). Also, some passages in the Bible(Revelation, 1st Peter) suggest persecution by Nero.

6) So that's your argument.....Christians have lied in the past. The problem with Tacticus is it is very anti-Christian. Josephus is one thing, he probably wrote something anti-Jesus so a Christian scribe edited it. Nevertheless, your argument isn't enough to support this. Christians were not popular the time, so even if they hated Nero, I doubt it would be enough to be pro-Christian. So saying "Christians have lied" and then using your favorite argument of silence, your claims are not well met.

[maj1n]

1) Alright, I'll presume you simply did not understand me. First off, you are looking at only one translation. About half of the translations say tree, the other half says cross. But here is my key point, The Bible was NOT written in english. One of the problems with the Bible is that some words don't translate in the exact way and it leeds to some confusion. Example, there was debate if Jesus had a homosexual relationship with John(The desciple whom he "loved"). The problem is there are multiple words for love in greek, and the exact word for romantic love was not used(it was devine love I think). Here, the word used for "tree" in the greek bible isn't used in this passage. The word they use is actually the same word they use for the tree of life. Early Christians hymns and records often say that the cross is the tree of life, because through Jesus(who died on the cross) people may have everlasting life.

Not really, Jesus' punishment according to Galatians was supposed to be hanging from a tree.

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but ye shall by all means bury it in that day; for everyone that is hanged on a tree is cursed of God; and ye shall by no means defile the land which the Lord thy God gives thee for an inheritance.
-deuteronomy 21:23

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree.
-Galatians 3:13

Acts has Christ HANGED on a tree (and stoned), all of which conflicts with the gospel crucifixion accounts.


2) Then answer this, why did he only use the gospel of Pilate? Why not Mark, Luke, Matt or a more popular one? I am trying to say that Justin was usng the acts of Pilate to appeal to the Romans. He didn't use Luke or another because they would just be considered a religious text, while the acts of pilate would be more likely accepted as fact by them.

What makes you think he knew Mark, Luke or Matthew? what evidence do you have of that?

Furthermore, you do know that the Acts of Pilate was not claimed to be written by Pontius Pilate, the material we have of it shows that, it never once mentions its author.

Finally, your argument is totally circular, essentially it is 'Justin thought his evidence was right, hence his evidence is right'.

There were many people who claimed evidence of alien abduction and tampering (think crop circles) that they thought it was valid does not make it valid.


3) Man, were all the scribes bored or something? What exactly do they ever have to right about if they don't give detailed events of the persons acts? All we know about Pilate from the Romans is his name.....which they found scribbled somewhere. So either the scribes in Rome weren't very good to begin with, or the records have been lost.

Right, because Jesus, the holy man who stirred up ALL the jews in Rome, and had such a public execution that ALL the scribes were there, and that earthquakes, 3 day darkness and zombies appeared, just seemed to be something not noteworthy for them to take down at the time.


4) The idea of the devin mating with mary has nothing to back up its claim. As I've stated, women were not included in official timelines. Their husbands were often adopted into them. So if there are two official timelines that contradict, its easily explianed that one is Mary's because its logical. And your Paul statement is still assumption. You are comparing Paul to you and what you would have spoken about if you were him. Arguments of silence are FLAWED arguments.

Wherever did i use an argument of silence? An argument of silence is an assertion of truth, that something is fact, from silence, i only stated that Paul is most likely ignorant of Jesus' life.


As to Paul, i am inferring that his silence on Jesus' life is remarkable considering he was preaching about jesus, this suggests he probably did not know much of Jesus' early life.

The use of such a thing is based on probability, that is to say 'if he was discussing Jesus, he would most likely have talked about his life, but he didn't, which is strange, hence he probably did not know about Jesus' early life'.

It is an argument based on the balance of probabilities, your argument doesn't even have that, you have no evidence or rationale that Mary IS linked to David, hence you cannot infer that this was left out of the genealogies, you have not yet even established that there is a good chance Mary is linked to David.


5) You are ignoring the fact Tacticus's comments were very negative towards Christians, which is why people generally don't believe it was re-edited by a Christian. You forget also Christians weren't popular in general. Some historians at the time thought Nero caused it anyway. You're also using the argument of silence again, which is still flawed. You are once again mistake your assumption/speculation for fact. Suetonius mentions Christins being persecuted at this time(although doesn't mention the fire). Also, some passages in the Bible(Revelation, 1st Peter) suggest persecution by Nero.

Your not using an argument from silence correctly, here ill give you some examples:

Suppose someone claimed a plague that wiped out 9/10s of the worlds population, if there is no writing of it (and evidence) is it somehow invalid to say it probably did not happen?

What about, let us say, a war between every people and every country in the world, if no evidence of comments on this war is around, is it invalid to say it probably did not happen?

Lets take this further, suppose i claim Elvis presley was shown the future of the world, is it invalid for people to not believe me (under the rationale that Elvis probably would have said something).

An Argument from silence is about stating a fact from silence, in other words proving something from silence,which is wrong, but you can state that something is the most probable explanation given some rationale.

As to the fire in Rome caused by Christians, the ONLY mention of that is by Tacitus, and he ALSO talks of Christians being dressed in dog hides and being torn by dogs and being used as human torches, and that there were MANY MANY christians, which is most likely wrong given the fact that Christianity was not great in numbers until at least the end of the 2nd century, clearly his account is unreliable.

Our earliest copy of the annals (of which the passage comes from) dated to around 11th century, thats more then 700 years whereby it was copied and recopied in an era known for christian fabrications and interpolations into peoples writings.

[MartialHorror]

1) You need to learn Greek. lol, I guess I do too. The word used for "tree" in that sentence is incredibly vague. The greek word used is xylon, which means wood. It can mean either cut(into anything, a table, cross, ect) wood or a live tree. So while it could mean Jesus was crucified on a live tree, the same word can also mean he wasn't. Hence, saying Jesus was crucified on a live tree is more assumption on your part when it can also mean he was crucified on the cross. I will point out that there is another word(Stauros I believe) that is more commonly used with Jesus's cross. The exact definition though refers to the nails which were driven through Christs hands. The main gospels are surprisingly vague as to what Christ was actually crucified on for this reason.

2) Because Justin was alive when Mark+co were written. Its INCREDIBLY unlikely the acts of pilate was the only one written. I've also told you already the acts we have was not the one mentioned by Justin. You continue to ignore my point that Justin was using it as an appeal to the Romans, something they would accept, not just a religious text.

3) May I remind you even if the Bible is 100% true, only Mathew mentions the darkness and zombies. You ignore that if the Christians were flat out lying, they would have been stopped by the Romans(or Jews). You forget the Romans initially wanted to discourage Christianity(Ignatius's death shows this). Anyway, weren't scribes people who copied and wrote down biblical laws? I suppose I can also say Jesus criticized them for changing and corrupting the law.

4) Because he did not mention it. This is an argument of silence. Because he didn't speak much on Jesus's life, then he did not know of it. This is a flawed argument. I mean, lets say I am a huge zombie movie fan. I write a book about zombie movies yet never mention..........."Plague of the dead" Or Lucio Fulci's Zombi. Does this mean I never heard of them or saw them? No, its simply I did not find them important enough to write about them. Presuming I never watched them just because I don't mention them is speculation.(this may be the dumbest example I've ever given.....)

5) You only dont agree on Mary because you dont believe in Jesus in the first place. I've noticed you basically exploit all the points in favor that he did not exist, as small or unrecognized as they are, and ignore everything else. Explained the Paul bit above.

6) Your arguments are flawed because they are being pulled out of nothing.

A more likely example, is "Because Jesus never condemned homosexuality, he must be for it!"

An argument is silence is saying because so and so never said it, it must be true/aright. In that right, saying because Paul makes little mention of Jesus's life, he must not have known is an argument of silence.

You are also comparing Paul to how you would do it, and because Paul didn't do it that way he simply must have been wrong or not have known. Not everyone thinks like you, and Paul was intent on the divine nature of Christ, not wordly.

So once again, you say "because Christians have copied, then nothing they do is reliable" lol.

You have to remember if a Christian edited it he probably wouldn't have kept all the christian-bashing in there. There is also some strange aspects of the fire that we cant explain. Many historians of the time failed to mention the fire at all, despite physical evidense for it. So.....if so many historians failed to even mention it(making Roman records even more questionable), why would others bother mentioning the people who were blamed? Suetonius also mentions Christian persecution at that time. Also, Tacticus was a well respected historian, and saying "Christians edited it" is a flawed argument because unless there is absolute proof, you cannot make that claim.

[maj1n]

1) You need to learn Greek. lol, I guess I do too. The word used for "tree" in that sentence is incredibly vague. The greek word used is xylon, which means wood. It can mean either cut(into anything, a table, cross, ect) wood or a live tree. So while it could mean Jesus was crucified on a live tree, the same word can also mean he wasn't. Hence, saying Jesus was crucified on a live tree is more assumption on your part when it can also mean he was crucified on the cross. I will point out that there is another word(Stauros I believe) that is more commonly used with Jesus's cross. The exact definition though refers to the nails which were driven through Christs hands. The main gospels are surprisingly vague as to what Christ was actually crucified on for this reason.

Xylon means wood and tree in greek, and it can be used in either depending on context, stauros means stake, or 'a piece of wood', your argument would also mean the gospel accounts of the crucifixion where it is depicted as a cross has no real support, this is even further apparent that there is no symbolism of a cross for Jesus until i believe the middle of the 2nd to 3rd century.


2) Because Justin was alive when Mark+co were written. Its INCREDIBLY unlikely the acts of pilate was the only one written. I've also told you already the acts we have was not the one mentioned by Justin. You continue to ignore my point that Justin was using it as an appeal to the Romans, something they would accept, not just a religious text.

Exactly how do you imagine the gospel texts were like back then? do you really believe that they all come from a common area? that people knew them all? that they were widespread and known?

As to the appeal to Rome, your still not understanding your faulty logic, it is along these lines 'Justin thought he could convince some Roman people from the Acts of Pilate that Jesus was crucified, hence the Acts of Pilate is reliable'.

Which is absurdly faulty, your assuming basically 'Justin thought it was reliable hence it is reliable', ever been to court? one does not just trust a witness despite them relating what they obviously thought was 'reliable', especially the opposition.

And we do know Eusebius thought it was unreliable, why do you arbitrarily put more weight on Justin then Eusebius, at least we know Eusebius was a very learned and somewhat reasonable Christian father (although he was full of bullshit too).

3) May I remind you even if the Bible is 100% true, only Mathew mentions the darkness and zombies. You ignore that if the Christians were flat out lying, they would have been stopped by the Romans(or Jews). You forget the Romans initially wanted to discourage Christianity(Ignatius's death shows this). Anyway, weren't scribes people who copied and wrote down biblical laws? I suppose I can also say Jesus criticized them for changing and corrupting the law.

Exactly what historical precedant can you give me that, even if there is a group that preaches something in contrast to the established government, they would definitely be silenced completely? there is none, even in now CHina, which its government rules quite totalitarianistic, and bans many different types of groups, those groups continue to exist, the Islamic Sunni and shia split, the shia were able to survive despite being a clear minority and attacked by the Sunni's.

Do you imagine the Roman Government to be omnipotent? or even more powerful then our modern government despite our superiority such as technology? even with our superior surveillance techniques, we cannnot root out every terrorist (such as muslim extremist) why exactly do you believe the Romans had even better power?


4) Because he did not mention it. This is an argument of silence. Because he didn't speak much on Jesus's life, then he did not know of it. This is a flawed argument. I mean, lets say I am a huge zombie movie fan. I write a book about zombie movies yet never mention..........."Plague of the dead" Or Lucio Fulci's Zombi. Does this mean I never heard of them or saw them? No, its simply I did not find them important enough to write about them. Presuming I never watched them just because I don't mention them is speculation.(this may be the dumbest example I've ever given.....)

If you wrote a book called 'zombie movies i watched' and you didn't list them, it is rational to consider that you probably did not see them, the same as Paul actually.

Furthermore your making a straw man of my position, which is a fallacy, i did not say it is fact he did not know Jesus' life, but he probably did not, since he would have mentioned it when trying to convert Jews.

5) You only dont agree on Mary because you dont believe in Jesus in the first place. I've noticed you basically exploit all the points in favor that he did not exist, as small or unrecognized as they are, and ignore everything else. Explained the Paul bit above.

What? it is not that i don't agree on Mary, but you don't even posit ANY evidence that actually lends at least more probability that Mary is related to David, it is basically still up in the air.


A more likely example, is "Because Jesus never condemned homosexuality, he must be for it!"

An argument is silence is saying because so and so never said it, it must be true/aright. In that right, saying because Paul makes little mention of Jesus's life, he must not have known is an argument of silence.

No, i gave you examples, the rationale is this, where we know from human behaviour one would most likely mention something, and they don't, it is probable it is not true or didn't happen.

If i claim Elvis was shown the future of the world, and he never once mentions this, and people don't believe it, are they being stupid? no.

We infer, from patterns of behavior, it is a type of induction.


You are also comparing Paul to how you would do it, and because Paul didn't do it that way he simply must have been wrong or not have known. Not everyone thinks like you, and Paul was intent on the divine nature of Christ, not wordly.

Indeed Paul explicitly states that he saw a vision of Jesus, he never once met Jesus, which actually lends credence to the theory that he probably did not know much about Jesus' life, since, if we take the rational approach and exclude magic, then Paul never saw a vision of Jesus either and never met Jesus.


So once again, you say "because Christians have copied, then nothing they do is reliable" lol.

You have to remember if a Christian edited it he probably wouldn't have kept all the christian-bashing in there. There is also some strange aspects of the fire that we cant explain. Many historians of the time failed to mention the fire at all, despite physical evidense for it. So.....if so many historians failed to even mention it(making Roman records even more questionable), why would others bother mentioning the people who were blamed? Suetonius also mentions Christian persecution at that time. Also, Tacticus was a well respected historian, and saying "Christians edited it" is a flawed argument because unless there is absolute proof, you cannot make that claim.
Precedence shows your wrong, pro-Christians clearly tampered with Josephus, but it is clear from his own writings he is Jewish, obviously you cannot appeal to 'if Christians were smart they wouldn't have selected them'.

We do not know who tampered with them, we cannot infer they were especially very clever.

And you made another strawman, i did not say it was definitely tampered, but the fact we only have the copy of a copy of hundreds of copies at least 700 years after Tacitus supposedly wrote it in an era where tampering was very common, it is not reliable.

And i gave you enough reasons so as to not support



As to the fire in Rome caused by Christians, the ONLY mention of that is by Tacitus, and he ALSO talks of Christians being dressed in dog hides and being torn by dogs and being used as human torches, and that there were MANY MANY christians, which is most likely wrong given the fact that Christianity was not great in numbers until at least the end of the 2nd century, clearly his account is unreliable.

Our earliest copy of the annals (of which the passage comes from) dated to around 11th century, thats more then 700 years whereby it was copied and recopied in an era known for christian fabrications and interpolations into peoples writings.

Even IF we exclude the very real possibility of tampering, the fantastic story of persecution of Christians is very likely false, especially that such acts should have at least been commented by some other known historian at the time (Josephus especially), so it is not reliable.

[MartialHorror]

1) I dont think the Bible ever describes the cross as the cross we know of today. The only basis is that at the time, that style of crucifixion was very popular.

2) Dont see why you would bring up court, because even first hand eye witnesses aren't concrete. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John had all been written at that time and a staunch Christians like Justin would have read more gospels than the acts of Pilate. My logic is not faulty, it still shows at that time it was considered a historical document. I guess it doesn't matter how many times I tell you there have been multiple acts of Pilate stories.....

3) Because the Romans had the tendency to execute people just like that. The U.S Government would not be able to get away with such techniques. The Romans though were brutal and not very tolerant.

4) I didn't say "Zombie movies I watched", I said "Zombie movies". The problem with Paul is you are GUESSING based on your personal opinion. You even changed my example, showing how manipulative you are.

5) Its a plausible explanation. When historians and scholars decide this, they try to find reasonable explanations and Mary's relation to David is a very likely one. It's also suggested Joseph's parents were of a levite marriage or one(or both) were fabrications. Once again, you only stress on one because you don't believe Jesus existed. Once again, you still speculate on Paul based on your own opinion, yet you consider that fact because it supports you. You are even more biased on the subject than I am.

6) Except saying "Elvis saw the future" is too random for it to be usable for you. Paul focused on the divinity of Jesus, how Christians should act, ect. Jesus's life is hardly relevent. The only person thinking this is you. Yet you can't tell the difference between fact and your opinion. Many historians never mentioned Nero's fire either, yet we know it happened.

7) Just because he never met Jesus, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about him. I never met Jessie Jackson, yet I know alot about him. Flawed argument.

8) "not clearly", because there is a minority of scholars who believe the passage is authentic. Josephus seemed to say "maybe he is the messiah" but this doesn't mean he wasn't. He also thought someone else was the messiah, so saying "he's Jewish" is incredibly subjective. Early Christians were Jewish too you know. So by this logic, because only a minority of scholars/historians believe Jesus was a myth, then I can say Josephus's passage was authentic. Once again though, even if it is a myth, Tacticus's writings are too anti-Christian to be believed to have been written by a Christian.

9) Other than the controversial passage, Josephus never/hardly mentioned Christians at all. Anyway, he didn't even mention the fire so why would he mention the persecutions that would follow?

[maj1n]

2) Dont see why you would bring up court, because even first hand eye witnesses aren't concrete. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John had all been written at that time and a staunch Christians like Justin would have read more gospels than the acts of Pilate. My logic is not faulty, it still shows at that time it was considered a historical document. I guess it doesn't matter how many times I tell you there have been multiple acts of Pilate stories.....

You'd be wrong there, we do not know whether the authors of those gospels are the actual apostles, and we do not know when they lived, however given the (quite tentative) dating of the gospels through the temple, they would not be the apostles.


3) Because the Romans had the tendency to execute people just like that. The U.S Government would not be able to get away with such techniques. The Romans though were brutal and not very tolerant.

really? u'd be wrong, they dont just 'execute' people like that, btw, what happened if people just didn't express their views publicly?
I dont think the U.S. Government just allows terrorists to make bombs, but obviously, those stuff can still happen without their knowledge in their country.


4) I didn't say "Zombie movies I watched", I said "Zombie movies". The problem with Paul is you are GUESSING based on your personal opinion. You even changed my example, showing how manipulative you are.

I am showing you that it is not the same, Paul wrote a text which one would definitely expect to mention jesus' life, he is trying to establish his message is the correct one, mentioning jesus as supporting said message through his life would seem like a no-brainer.


5) Its a plausible explanation. When historians and scholars decide this, they try to find reasonable explanations and Mary's relation to David is a very likely one. It's also suggested Joseph's parents were of a levite marriage or one(or both) were fabrications. Once again, you only stress on one because you don't believe Jesus existed. Once again, you still speculate on Paul based on your own opinion, yet you consider that fact because it supports you. You are even more biased on the subject than I am.

it is a possibility, but do remember that virtually everything is possible, that does not mean it is rational to believe it is true.

It is also plausible that the earth is flat, all the evidence was faked through a supernatural entity.


6) Except saying "Elvis saw the future" is too random for it to be usable for you. Paul focused on the divinity of Jesus, how Christians should act, ect. Jesus's life is hardly relevent. The only person thinking this is you. Yet you can't tell the difference between fact and your opinion. Many historians never mentioned Nero's fire either, yet we know it happened.

jesus' life is hardly relevant in terms of how christians should act? ok nice logic there.


7) Just because he never met Jesus, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about him. I never met Jessie Jackson, yet I know alot about him. Flawed argument.

but you don't know much about that persons life do you? and if Paul only got his information from another christian, his writings immediately become unreliable as evidence, considering one cannot verify if this 'other christian' was telling the truth, in fact one would have to be suspect that Paul would not admit this, and claim seeing a divine christ.


8) "not clearly", because there is a minority of scholars who believe the passage is authentic. Josephus seemed to say "maybe he is the messiah" but this doesn't mean he wasn't. He also thought someone else was the messiah, so saying "he's Jewish" is incredibly subjective. Early Christians were Jewish too you know. So by this logic, because only a minority of scholars/historians believe Jesus was a myth, then I can say Josephus's passage was authentic. Once again though, even if it is a myth, Tacticus's writings are too anti-Christian to be believed to have been written by a Christian.

Jews would not say Jesus is the messiah, that would make them Christian.
As to Tacitus, we do not know if it was tampered with, we have a version that is 700 years later at the least,and his version of the story is quite unreliable since it has fantastic events, christians draped with dog hides, eaten by dogs, used as human torches, mass executions when we know christians at the time were a minority, no mention of that by any other historian living in Rome.

Did you know, though, that there is a known forged letter that also described the fire Tacitus describes it, from seneca to Paul, interesting that this forged letter (as in interpolation) would be so similar to tacitus.

[Sub-Zero]

I respect most religions, excluding Chrisitanity.

[Diamed]

MH, suffice to say that without archaeological evidence, all written accounts are untrustworthy and just as likely to be lies and a true account, or mistakes by well-meaning but misinformed people. Jesus has no evidence of his life, only a bunch of texts about him. We know that the christians distorted the texts of their opponents or destroyed them, so even the texts of third parties like roman historians are suspect. I don't think this is about Christ though, his point is you can't trust any historical figure no matter who it might be with so little evidence and so many lies, fantasies, and tampering around him.

From my perspective the gospels are all worthless because they have an agenda, and since they claim obvious lies like miracles being done, (no miracles have ever been documented or proven by real evidence), everything else they have to say about Jesus is probably just more lies. Sure there might be some truth mixed in there but it's like digging through shit because a pony might be inside. Now if you change your perspective and say, "the historical jesus is unimportant, the jesus that affects this world is the jesus fabricated out of whole cloth by the gospels"--there you go, that jesus is definitely real, I see him all around me every day. No one is disputing that Jesus, and he's the only one who matters.

[MartialHorror]

Majin:

1)I agree they probably weren't the apostles, even at the earliest dates. Yet that wasn't my point. my point was that Justin either wasn't aware of any of the other gospels, which is very unlikely, so he obviously thought the acts of pilate would be proof enough for the Romans.

2) True, but we know little of the effort. With all the persecution and Nero's fire, we have no evidense it was ever an attempt to destroy Christianity for falsifying Pilates name. Josephus also mentioned John the Baptist, and if he was popular back then, then the Jews probably would do something to get us to stop talking about him as well.

3) Except you are ignoring the fact Paul had no interest in writing about Jesus's life. You think Paul was lying anyway and if little was known about Jesus he probably could/would have made more up on Jesus's life. You say its a no-brainer because of what you would do, which is just idiotic logic. You are still presenting an argument of silence, which doesn't work.

4) Except we have no reason to believe a supernatural entity is making the world look flat. The Mary bit is simply a matter of connecting the dots, which you refuse to believe in because you don't believe Jesus existed.

5) Jesus's teachings are relevant, not his life-story.

6) Actually, I do know quite a bit about Jessie Jacksons life. I did research. Paul travelled alot and came across many Christians, including Peter himself. I doubt he simply heard about him from another Christian. Also, he persecuted Christians prior to becoming one, which means even before his conversion he probably knew some.

7) I know of the letter. Except once again, you are ignoring many(maybe even most) historians ignored the fire, yet we have physical evidense it happened, and we know Christians were persecuted at the time. You continue to ignore Tacticus's comments are very anti-Christian, possibly even implicating them in the fire, so a Christian writing that doesn't make sense.

Speaking of ignoring things, you just dropped the first point. Because you have proven to me you either were ignorant or manipulative of the tree verses, where are these stoning verses you were talking about? Or were you making that up too?

Diamad: That's fine and even to a degree, I agree. The issue that Majin and maybe you are ignoring is that most experts believe he existed....the Biblical Jesus now is debatable, but at the least it is believed there was a historical Jesus. It bothers the hell out of me when Narutofan members who are probably still in school pretend their word is more valuable than theirs. Even when I was a creationist, I always admitted the word of a scientist was more reliable than mine. Majins argument is not even that good. He caught me off guard with the tree thing, but I managed to prove that wrong anyway. He is bitching at me for doing what he is doing, and is pretending his speculation is fact.

It just occured to me.....why are we debating Jesus in a Muhammad thread?

[Diamed]

I'm 99% jesus existed and he said/did something--but after that you have 300 years of people just making up whatever they wanted about him and voting on which gospel is true. ::shakes his head:: No one without a time machine can go back and find the truth.

[Zabuzalives]

I just wanted to reply to this before going off to bed. Killing traitors has always been the best policy towards them. In most countries, a traitor is sentenced to death. This has been proven time and again to be the best policy. For instance, in the story of Julius Caesar, after he beat pompey, hey gave clemency to Cassius and Brutus and pompey's other supporters. In the end, the ones who killed Caesar are cassius and brutus. Then again, when Brutus let Mark Antony live, he made the biggest mistake because he was the one to start the revolution. And then after that, after the Triumvirate won, Agustus went after Mark Antony when he went to Egypt because he was a traitor, and guess what? Agustus was the most successfull ruler of Rome.

So stop repeating that over and over again. Oh, I might reply to other stuff later.

wait....so youre actually supporting the killing of ex-muslims for ""betraying"" their religion? Or justifying it?

Islamofascism ftw.

People are not free to make up their minds or have the freedom to choose their religion in Islam?? Once a muslim always a muslim!

Yeah i understand why they implemented that. To agressively enforce and spread the religion. People not becoming or staying muslim out of choice but out of force and fear....:notrust

Islam, the religion of ""peace"" speaks again!


Your form of Islam is incompatible to my Moral system. I will always oppose and fight against it.

[maj1n]

I believe we are rehashing our own argument MH, so i think this will be my last post (and we did derail this thread.


1)I agree they probably weren't the apostles, even at the earliest dates. Yet that wasn't my point. my point was that Justin either wasn't aware of any of the other gospels, which is very unlikely, so he obviously thought the acts of pilate would be proof enough for the Romans.

Indeed he did, this however cannot be used to somehow say the acts themselves are accurate, as Eusebius later shows how it is incompatible with the Gospels.


2) True, but we know little of the effort. With all the persecution and Nero's fire, we have no evidense it was ever an attempt to destroy Christianity for falsifying Pilates name. Josephus also mentioned John the Baptist, and if he was popular back then, then the Jews probably would do something to get us to stop talking about him as well.

Another reason why Josephus' work is unreliable since it has been tampered with.


3) Except you are ignoring the fact Paul had no interest in writing about Jesus's life. You think Paul was lying anyway and if little was known about Jesus he probably could/would have made more up on Jesus's life. You say its a no-brainer because of what you would do, which is just idiotic logic. You are still presenting an argument of silence, which doesn't work.

5) Jesus's teachings are relevant, not his life-story.

Jesus' teachings are his life story, in fact it would be impossible to justify what you considered to be Jesus' teachings without saying he actually taught them (hence his life).


4) Except we have no reason to believe a supernatural entity is making the world look flat. The Mary bit is simply a matter of connecting the dots, which you refuse to believe in because you don't believe Jesus existed.

No, your theory of Mary has no evidence to even make it probable, this is your argument:

-Mary could have been related to David (no evidence)
-the genealogies may just not mention it because Mary is a woman (no evidence).

Your making a claim (statement of truth) from no evidence, you haven't even given a rationale as to why it is LIKELY mary was related to david.


7) I know of the letter. Except once again, you are ignoring many(maybe even most) historians ignored the fire, yet we have physical evidense it happened, and we know Christians were persecuted at the time. You continue to ignore Tacticus's comments are very anti-Christian, possibly even implicating them in the fire, so a Christian writing that doesn't make sense.

A christian making forgeries in Josephus' work when he was a Jew didn't make sense either, but someone did it.

The Church including the gospels together when they contradict each other doesn't make sense either, but it happened.

You also seem to disregard Tacitus' actual account, which is too fantastical to be reliable (christians dressed in dogs hides, eaten by dogs, used as human torches).


Speaking of ignoring things, you just dropped the first point. Because you have proven to me you either were ignorant or manipulative of the tree verses, where are these stoning verses you were talking about? Or were you making that up too?

what tree thing? that Jesus was supposed to be hanged on a tree? there is no argument here deuteronomy lists punishment against Jews as hanging on a tree

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"
-Galatians 3:13

is really a reference of Deuteronomy 21:23 by Paul

" 22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance."

1 Peter has Jesus hanged on a tree as does Acts, which is inferred from that.

[MartialHorror]

Yes, we are repeating ourselves so if thats your last post I wont bother to respond to all of that.

The last part made me laugh though because I proved you wrong and you don't seem to have read my proof in the previous post.

[maj1n]

The last part made me laugh though because I proved you wrong and you don't seem to have read my proof in the previous post.
No you didn't, you explicitly said that the greek word used for tree and cross in the greek is ambigous, and depends on context, in other words, it could mean what i mean by your argument.

That in itself means you support my argument as a possibility, how could you prove it wrong?

You might also like to note the context is given, 'hang', implies a tree, since that is how they (the jewish and Romans) punished people, you do not hang a person on a cross, you crucify him, and there is a word for that separate in greek, hence it is most likely tree.

[MartialHorror]

I can also say when I was a kid, I hanged on the tree in my background. Hanged does not mean the actual noose around his neck.

Sure, there is always a possibility, but the word is too vague for you to make the presumption. It means either live tree or dead wood, we dont know the context of which it was being used. Based on other gospels though, the dead wood makes sense.

But the only basis you have is that you generally only take evidense that supports you.