Jesus was the only person who ever actually claimed to be god. If this is not true would that make him a hypocrit? Is he telling the truth?

if you notice talk to an athiest and you can say anything about bhudda(SP) or muhamad or whatever and get nothingbut if you were to speak the name of Jesus it suddenly changes to something more along the lines of an argument than a conversation.

further look at the power of his name you never see any body hit there thumb with a hammer and yell out "holy shiva!" do you?

hes also one of the few spiritual leaders that they have record of actually existing with out any argument.

with such sound proof as that why would you not believe he truly is the son of god?

quote:Originally posted by rodrat16:



hes also one of the few spiritual leaders that they have record of actually existing with out any argument.

with such sound proof as that why would you not believe he truly is the son of god?

1. There is greater historical proof for the existance of Heracles than Jesus Christ. Jesus, or Jeshua, in Hebrew meant "savior". Every band of Jewish rebels had it's own Jeshua. There are something like 23 people named Jeshua operating within a hundred years of 0AD, three of them who can be attributed miracles during Jesus's supposed lifetime.

There is no historical evidence for the census at his birth, even though some of the great historians were alive then. Furthermore, such an act wouldn't even make sense for the Romans. It would force the migrations of millions of people, for no god reason.

There is no aspect of the Jesus myth that is original. Mithra from Zoroastrianism, Osiris/Horus, and the Krisna aspect of Shiva all had nearly identical stories, and all predated Jesus by at least a century.

quote:Jesus was the only person who ever actually claimed to be god. If this is not true would that make him a hypocrit? Is he telling the truth?

People claim to be God all the time. We call them insane. But if you mean in a mythological sense? The emperor of Japan is a God. Many religions have Gods who take on mortal form. You just know jack-shit about the world.

quote:

if you notice talk to an athiest and you can say anything about bhudda(SP) or muhamad or whatever and get nothingbut if you were to speak the name of Jesus it suddenly changes to something more along the lines of an argument than a conversation.

Most of us grew up with Christianity as the dominant religion. I did. I know the stoery of Mohammad, but not nearly as well as the story of Jesus. I know exactly why I'm convinced Jesus never existed. Mohammad I just don't care enough about to deconstruct.

quote:

further look at the power of his name you never see any body hit there thumb with a hammer and yell out "holy shiva!" do you?

You really are a stupid little kid, aren't you? Maybe if someone who wasn't a Christian hit their thumb, they'd curse to their God. Or maybe other people actually respect their gods enough not to use them for profanities. To remind you, thats actually a sin in Christianity, 'tard.

Also, it would help if your points weren't taken from a bad comedian, who was tring to make race points.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

You really are a stupid little kid, aren't you? Maybe if someone who wasn't a Christian hit their thumb, they'd curse to their God. Or maybe other people actually respect their gods enough not to use them for profanities. To remind you, thats actually a sin in Christianity, 'tard.

Also, it would help if your points weren't taken from a bad comedian, who was tring to make race points.

what comedian was this?

"jesus christ" is an expletive in the english language. is "fucking cunt" proof that fucking cunt is the son of god? no.

go and suck a bishops cock, you fail at your argument.

quote:Originally posted by rodrat16:

Jesus was the only person who ever actually claimed to be god. If this is not true would that make him a hypocrit? Is he telling the truth?

if you notice talk to an athiest and you can say anything about bhudda(SP) or muhamad or whatever and get nothingbut if you were to speak the name of Jesus it suddenly changes to something more along the lines of an argument than a conversation.

further look at the power of his name you never see any body hit there thumb with a hammer and yell out "holy shiva!" do you?

hes also one of the few spiritual leaders that they have record of actually existing with out any argument.

with such sound proof as that why would you not believe he truly is the son of god?

The famous Christian apologist and poet, CS Lewis, presented an interesting point in his book, "Mere Christianity." When it comes to Jesus, there are only three options to choose from, which another author, Josh McDowell expounded. He calls it the "Trilemma."

1. Jesus knew that He wasn't the Son of God, but claimed to be. Therefore, He's a liar.

2. Jesus truly thought He was the Son of God, but wasn't. Therefore, He's delusional.

3. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, because He really is the Son of God. Therefore, what He says is absolute truth.

Which of the three categories fits Jesus best?

Discuss.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

The famous Christian apologist and poet, CS Lewis, presented an interesting point in his book, "Mere Christianity." When it comes to Jesus, there are only three options to choose from, which another author, Josh McDowell expounded. He calls it the "Trilemma."

1. Jesus knew that He wasn't the Son of God, but claimed to be. Therefore, He's a liar.

2. Jesus truly thought He was the Son of God, but wasn't. Therefore, He's delusional.

3. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, because He really is the Son of God. Therefore, what He says is absolute truth.

Which of the three categories fits Jesus best?

Discuss.

CS Lewis is a master of logical fallacy. Here's an idea! He never existed and is simply the product of someone's imagination!

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Which of the three categories fits Jesus best?

Discuss.

Well, seeing as Jesus provided nothing to substantiate his claims, and seeing as those claims require the existence of an illogical being, then undoubtedly 1 or 2 fit him the best. What would be up to debate is whether or not he knew he wasn't the son of a god, or not, and that's trivial.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

Well, seeing as Jesus provided nothing to substantiate his claims, and seeing as those claims require the existence of an illogical being, then undoubtedly 1 or 2 fit him the best. What would be up to debate is whether or not he knew he wasn't the son of a god, or not, and that's trivial.

Alright, for the sake of the argument, I would say that there is nothing monuemental to substantiate Jesus' claims. But then again, judging by the same logic, we could say that there is nothing more that should compel us to believe that Plato existed, or anyone else from antiquity, either. We have to consider this: Even if the testimonies about Jesus are greatly exaggerated, rarely does folklore come out of thin air. There is almost always some element of truth to an initial story. And being that Jesus has had more lipservice, good and bad, than any other person in human history, gives all the more reason that someone named Jesus did exist in Israel at that time. Whether His miracles were faked, or whatever, is inconsequential. Furthermore, there is much extra-biblical evidence that He existed, by people who had nothing good to say about Him, (again, irrespective of whether or not His existence was exaggerated). I think we can say, at the very least, that Jesus did exist. Now, I would certainly understand why His deity would be questioned. But I think to say that He never existed is pushing it a bit.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Alright, for the sake of the argument, I would say that there is nothing monuemental to substantiate Jesus' claims. But then again, judging by the same logic, we could say that there is nothing more that should compel us to believe that Plato existed, or anyone else from antiquity, either. We have to consider this: Even if the testimonies about Jesus are greatly exaggerated, rarely does folklore come out of thin air. There is almost always some element of truth to an initial story. And being that Jesus has had more lipservice, good and bad, than any other person in human history, gives all the more reason that someone named Jesus did exist in Israel at that time.

1. It seems, judging by what you go on to say, that you're erroneously assuming I was arguing that a historical figure named Jesus didn't exist. I was not.

2. If you're not, then that's a terrible example. We have a numerous amount of evidence for the existence of Plato. We don't have any evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. The two are not even comparable.

quote:

Whether His miracles were faked, or whatever, is inconsequential.

Most certainly not, as it puts his claims into question as well.

quote: Furthermore, there is much extra-biblical evidence that He existed, by people who had nothing good to say about Him, (again, irrespective of whether or not His existence was exaggerated). I think we can say, at the very least, that Jesus did exist. Now, I would certainly understand why His deity would be questioned. But I think to say that He never existed is pushing it a bit.



... I didn't say a historical figure named Jesus didn't exist at the time, nor did I propose such a thing. That was jsaxton14. So why you mention this is beyond me.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-10-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

... I didn't say a historical figure named Jesus didn't exist at the time, nor did I propose such a thing. That was jsaxton14. So why you mention this is beyond me.



I thought that's what you were arguing, whether or not, Jesus even existed.

And what evidence is there of Plato's existence? If you say, his writings, then you would have to also say that Jesus too existed because even more was written about Him. All of the evidence comes not Biblical sources, which you might say is biased, but extra-biblical accounts by peoples who have nothing to gain by tricking anyone, (especially when most of them despised the whole notion of Jesus).

"1. Flavius Josephus: (37 AD – 101 AD) Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born four years after Jesus’ physical death. As evidenced by his writings, Josephus was quite familiar with the turmoil in Palestine during the Roman occupation. As well, Josephus wrote about central figures of the New Testamental period.

a. Josephus makes mention of John the Baptist: “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, called the Baptists: For Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God. And so to come to Baptism; for the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thouroughly cleansed beforehand by righteousness.”

b. Josephus makes mention of Jesus: “Now, there was about that time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as to receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had him condemned to the cross. Those that loved him did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day; as the divine prophets had fortold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.”

c. Josephus makes mention of James, the brother of Jesus: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

d. Josephus makes mention of Ananias, the High Preist: “Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias, he increased in glory every day, and this to a degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder of money.”

2. Tacitus: (55 AD – 117 AD) Tacitus was a Roman historian who makes mention of the early Christians.

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians, by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it’s origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontious Pilate. A most mischevious superstition, thus checked for a moment, broke out again not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular… And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps… people began to pity these sufferers, because, they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.”

3. Thallus: (52 AD) Thallus was a historian who wrote about the the Eastern Mediteranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Here, Thallus records an eclipse of the sun, contemporaneous with the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. “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.” And this was also recorded in Luke’s gospel. What is most interesting is that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, which is on a full moon. It is not phyiscally possible for an eclipse to occur on a full moon. “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until about the ninth hour, the sun being obscured; and a veil of the Temple was torn in two.” –Luke 23:44-45

4. Pliny the Younger: (112 AD) Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. He here, in his tenth book, makes mention of Jesus. “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsfiy their word, nor dent a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

5. The Babylonian Talmud: (33 AD) This is the actual recording by the very men that ordered the execution of Jesus. *Take note of His charge* “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything on his behalf, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.” So, we see that Jesus was crucified for supposedly leading others away from the Law and for sorcery. This corroborates the gospels magnificiently, as we see extra-biblical evidence of His miracles and of His teachings, even though He did NOT teach against the Law. “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one who hangs from a tree.” –Galatians 3:13

6. Lucian: (120 AD – 180 AD) Lucian, a Greek writer and rhetorician, speaks of the early Christians. “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them. And then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and to deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they quite take on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

Though most of these accounts are resoundingly negative, we must remember that this aversion is common reaction towards Jesus and His followers, even today. It seems, then, that Christians have been persecuted from the very beginning as opposed to some sort of complex that we suffer from, which many have claimed. What is important to remember is that these historians mention Jesus Christ as an actual and factual person in human history. To put it bluntly, there is far more evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed, moreso than any other historical figure. Afterall, we don’t see the existence of Plato being questioned with the same tenacity, now do we? I wonder why that is."

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

The famous Christian apologist and poet, CS Lewis, presented an interesting point in his book, "Mere Christianity." When it comes to Jesus, there are only three options to choose from, which another author, Josh McDowell expounded. He calls it the "Trilemma."

1. Jesus knew that He wasn't the Son of God, but claimed to be. Therefore, He's a liar.

2. Jesus truly thought He was the Son of God, but wasn't. Therefore, He's delusional.

3. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, because He really is the Son of God. Therefore, what He says is absolute truth.

Which of the three categories fits Jesus best?

Discuss.

There are two problems with this. The minor one is that some scholars of the Christian Gospel have found that Jesus never said he was the literal "son" of the G-d.(This is based on Kabalacists claiming to be the Daughter or Son of the G-d, which in Hebrew semantics means being close to, it is not a literal statement.)

The second is that you have to believe that the Christian Gospel is not distorted or corrupted, in other words, you have to believe that the Christian Gospel is Divine, which to a Jew or Muslim(or any other religion), it is not. So because that premise is not accepted, everthing that follows is irrelevant.

[This message has been edited by Sharule (edited 03-10-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Sharule:

There are two problems with this. The minor one is that some scholars of the Christian Gospel have found that Jesus never said he was the literal "son" of the G-d.(This is based on Kabalacists claiming to be the Daughter or Son of the G-d, which in Hebrew semantics means being close to, it is not a literal statement.)

The second is that you have to believe that the Christian Gospel is not distorted or corrupted, in other words, you have to believe that the Christian Gospel is Divine, which to a Jew or Muslim(or any other religion), it is not. So because that premise is not accepted, everthing that follows is irrelevant.



We would have to assume all the more that the Tenach has been corrupted, being that it is much older, going by this logic alone. I, obviously, don't think that but what gives it any more credibility than any Christian document?

I take the accuracy and divinity of the Tanakh by faith. I can admit that rationally you can assume that it is corrupted(Muslims think so), I dont believe it is. The difference is that I am not basing my argument on the Tanakh, I do not try to convert others, I dont condemn those who dont believe. It is my personal opinion that even if the Tanakh is corrupted, the essential message is unchanged: Love your neighbor, love your enemy.

My faith does not rely on constantly having to prove my religion. People who do that are insecure. I believe because I want to, not because I have to come up with logical fallacies that Moses HAD to be a prophet.

In any case, the Tanakh's credibility is not on trial here. Regardless of whether it is corrupted or not, Christians accept it as divine, so an assumption in a Christian debate is that you can cite the Tanakh as part of an debate. If you disprove the Tanakh, you also disprove Christianity, which is based on the Prophecies of the Tanakh, especially in regards to the Messiah(Whom Christians argue is Jesus).

[This message has been edited by Sharule (edited 03-10-2006).]

okay iu read my own post you guys are right that was stupid

i was tired when i made this and didnt really no what i was doin

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

1. Jesus knew that He wasn't the Son of God, but claimed to be. Therefore, He's a liar.

2. Jesus truly thought He was the Son of God, but wasn't. Therefore, He's delusional.

3. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, because He really is the Son of God. Therefore, what He says is absolute truth.



I'd like to suggest that we apply this to all Christians who claim to be one of God's children.

Hyroglyphx, do you believe you are God's child? Yes or no?

If your answer is "Yes" please pick one of the above and apply to yourself.

If you answered "Yes" and then selected number 3, please go stone yourself for blasphemy.

If your answer is "No", well then, you have a post-death appointment with Satan and his flaming pitchfork.

Hey Hyro, answer da question, ma nigger!!!

quote:Originally posted by rodrat16:

what comedian was this?

Some fat, black comedian who had a whole bit on the difference between white people and black people. One of his differences was in how they call on God, specifically black people supposedly use "Jeeeee-sus" because it's "powerful".

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I thought that's what you were arguing, whether or not, Jesus even existed.

And what evidence is there of Plato's existence? If you say, his writings, then you would have to also say that Jesus too existed because even more was written about Him. All of the evidence comes not Biblical sources, which you might say is biased, but extra-biblical accounts by peoples who have nothing to gain by tricking anyone, (especially when most of them despised the whole notion of Jesus).

Then you thought completely wrong. How you got that when I never even hinted at such a thing, let alone say it, is beyond me. In fact, it would be extremly foolish to think that I had, since I explained which of the three possibilities you gave would describe Jesus the best - something which requires that I take Jesus' existence as true (at least for the sake of argument), in order to even attribute one of those possibilities to him!

Now please, are you going to reply to what I did say?

quote:Originally posted by rodrat16:

Jesus was the only person who ever actually claimed to be god. If this is not true would that make him a hypocrit? Is he telling the truth?

if you notice talk to an athiest and you can say anything about bhudda(SP) or muhamad or whatever and get nothingbut if you were to speak the name of Jesus it suddenly changes to something more along the lines of an argument than a conversation.

further look at the power of his name you never see any body hit there thumb with a hammer and yell out "holy shiva!" do you?

hes also one of the few spiritual leaders that they have record of actually existing with out any argument.

with such sound proof as that why would you not believe he truly is the son of god?



Apparently there were a lot more then just Jesus. Apparently.

who are you trying to convince? Us, or yourself?