Dolemite:

I never said anything about independent thinking, I did say I asked questions and made decisions by myself, you're so assuming it's ridiculous and annoying! and I'm ignorant to think that the story of Jesus could have been plagiarized from stories of pagan gods before? Ok, guess you know it all.

Dolemite:

Insecure about your intelligence? now I see where all this is from. . .

Dolemite:

The bible stood the test of time because once it was accepted Christians killed people who didn't believe or had different views. . .

Dolemite:

What the hell are you talking about? is this guy all right?  

Kay 17:

@dolemite,
The last time, I argued with davidlyan, i got a headache!
Its impossible to reason with him,
Hardly makes coherent arguments,
If he has some sense, he would wake up,

Kay 17:

@dolemite,
The last time, I argued with davidlyan, i got a headache!
Its impossible to reason with him,
Hardly makes coherent arguments,
If he has some sense, he would wake up,

davidylan:

For example . . . the book of Jude makes a quote that is found no where in the bible. The discovery of the book of enoch among the dead sea scrolls is amazing in the fact that Jude's quote is found ALMOST VERBATIM in the book of enoch! One of the books hidden by sects persecuted by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (the essenes) . . . i doubt if they had any power to kill off unbelievers since they didnt even survive the Roman onslaught . . . but its ok to stupidly parrot what you heard from others.

Okay, I lay the question who is god?

The problem arises, the definition of god. remember you ve rejected that provided by religion.

Is it a being responsible for the creation of the universe?

Does he form a small part of his own world?

The features of omniscient, omnipotent,  necessary?

Dolemite:

MY GOD!! this guy is so damn assuming!! I was talking about the era of the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the English burning 'witches' in the name of God! that's all fiction too right?

Dolemite:

All I see here is you beating your chest in arrogance about your sources and to everyone else is either name dropping or doesn't have credible sources. . .well this won't go anywhere now would it?

Dolemite:

MY GOD!! this guy is so damn assuming!! I was talking about the era of the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the English burning 'witches' in the name of God! that's all fiction too right?

Rhino.3dm:

Cowards like the pathetic jewish loon running for his life from some rag-tags thugs.
Thank you for bringing me back from retirement.

davidylan:

Quite silly. These happened donkey yrs AFTER the bible had already been compiled and had become common knowledge. the era of the crusades where NOT to kill enemies of the gospel (pls LEARN TO READ HISTORY PLS) but to stop the islamic advance both in Jerusalem and western Europe.

the Spanish inquistion was to force jews and muslims to convert to catholicism (by this time the bible was already set).

the reason i posted the point about the dead sea scrolls is simple (i know you're quite slow and wont get that so its alright) . . . the dead sea scrolls VALIDATE the bible, they are almost a carbon copy of the books found in the bible and a few not found in the bible. They also contain certain fragments that are not found in the bible as well. What is most incredible about this is that it completely tears the claim that the wars you post above were meant to "protect the bible" . . . that would be foolish as the dead sea scrolls themselves predate those wars!

There is no beating chest anywhere . . . i provide sources to buttress my claims, you make silly claims that dont hold water without providing any sources to back it up. If you understand science at all you shld know that citing sources is a very critical part of supporting your work.

davidylan:

allow me to digress and address this a bit more, perhaps not in sufficient detail as i would have wanted. the above claims are what you would expect a muslim to make . . . What really was the essence of this? this came up based on this point raised by dolemite - The bible stood the test of time because once it was accepted Christians killed people who didn't believe or had different views. . .

Now how were the crusades, inquisition and burning witches on stakes the reason the bible stood the test of time? Seriously? What about the numerous roman historians who predated all these events and ACCURATELY recorded many of the biblical accounts in secular documents? There are MANY GNOSTIC GOSPELS . . . yet if we were to go by dolemite's false claim the authors of these books shld be dead and their books destroyed . . . how come the crusaders ignored them and chose to go fight the muslims at the gates of Vienna (the crusades really)?

How come the authors os many of the new testament books were all martyred and YET their books survived? Was this because their disciples went around killing enemies and unbelievers? Seriously?

Are these people so unable to think they just stumble from one talking point to the other?

Dolemite:

All I see you doing here is just running your mouth, or fingers on a keyboard in this case, where are your sources and how credible or biased are they, or did you do all these research by yourself, or perhaps god told you all these things. . .

davidylan:

looks like you never bothered to read, its just easier to pass off insults.

davidylan:

I wouldnt put anything past these moose brains.

davidylan:

As regarding the credibility of the sources, if you bothered to read any of the links i sent you would see each claim is carefully cited with original sources. Just as an example . . . Cornelius Tacitus is cited in his Annals XV, 44. I'm sure you know that's credible right?

Dolemite:

Show me where I have insulted you? you're the one throwing insults here. . .
Aha, virtues of a Christian when their religion is questioned, the insults come out.

Dolemite:

He cited Tactius and that makes the hole thing credible, my sources also cite historical figures. . .

davidylan:

Christ called the pharisees a generation of vipers so i'm not bothered by such nonsensical claims.

Besides where did these address any of the issues on the thread? I thought you wanted to verify the credibility of sources posted . . . perhaps the problem is not whether the sources are credible or not, its more whether you are even aware that they exist in the first place. Calling you folks moose brains is not an insult really, its just an indication of how little you people truly know about the real world. The sad thing is that you still insist on exposing your ignorance by posting in sections that are obviously above your IQ.

Seriously, dont consider the above an insult. Just a candid advice.

davidylan:

Seriously just stop. this is getting more silly by the minute.

1. Anyone who is doubting the credibility of Tacitus annals seriously needs help.

2. You DID NOT cite any sources. If you did pls indicate.

3. the mithraic claims you got from the internet WHICH HAVE NO SOURCES! Infact CREDIBLE historical sources debunk the claims, same with that of dionysus.

Dolemite:

And you want me to verify your sources in 10 minutes, really the point is your sources makes sense to you as mine to me, but unlike you I am willing to look at a different point of view while you? not so much. . .

Dolemite:

1. Where did I say I doubted Tactius directly? show me!!

Dolemite:

2. I didn't cite any sources yet, because when I called names you were quick to shut it down without wanting to know where i got such information from. Assuming as usual.

Dolemite:

3. CREDIBLE he says, lol. . .that just proves what I've been saying all along.

Dolemite:

And you want me to verify your sources in 10 minutes, really the point is your sources makes sense to you as mine to me, but unlike you I am willing to look at a different point of view while you? not so much. . .

davidylan:

Enough of excusing your ignorance on the basis of  you being willing to look at a different point of view . . . you dont even have a clue what YOUR OWN point of view is. I'm willing to look at different opinions, at least i do READ up on the issues. The same cannot be said of you.

davidylan:

Here was your direct quote - He cited Tactius and that makes the hole thing credible

davidylan:

Like i said before - what would you all do without google?

Dolemite:

I don't see you citing REAL books. . .this is really going no where, I'm done.

davidylan:

and just in case you also doubt the veracity of Christ's very existence on earth . . . here is more for you WITH CREDIBLE SOURCES AND LINKS to historical accounts (stuff that doesnt exist for the pagan myths our atheist "scientists" seem to claim to be "facts" . . .

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html

davidylan:

Tacitus annals is a book my dear.

davidylan:

Yep it was going nowhere for a long time, sounded more like trying to teach a blooming  how to read.

mazaje:

These links are based purely on hear say, most of the people the writer talked about were NOT alive when Jesus was born most were just challenging the Christian claims later on some about a century after the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus, NO body, I repeat NO body even in the bible beside the writer of second peter has ever claimed to have meet Jesus when he was alive. . . . .

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Dolemite:

Which you got from Google no?
Flattering ourselves again are we?   so ridiculous.

mazaje:

These links are based purely on hear say, most of the people (the writers talked about) were NOT alive when Jesus was born or when he was said to be alive, most were just challenging the Christian claims later on some about a century or more after the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus, NO body, I repeat NO body even the writers of the bible beside the writer of second peter has ever claimed to have meet Jesus when he was alive. . . . .

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

davidylan:

Paul did dude. Stop making nonsense up. James did as well.

I mean seriously, you just posted James Walker's first point! do you have an independent brain at all? Read through the paragraph that deals with that issue . . . he writes a long treatise but NOT ONCE does he cite any credible source. So on what basis are we to take his claims seriously? Because he says what you want to hear?

mazaje:

Where did Paul say that he ever meet Jesus when Jesus was alive?. . . . .Where did James ever say that he ever meet Jesus when Jesus was alive, WHERE?. . . . .

Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.

It is worth noting that Paul does not place Jesus in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Jesus in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Jesus is a heavenly being, not a historical person. . . . . . .



James

There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter , supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER, Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus. If you have any passage in James where the writer says he has ever meet Jesus pls show me. . . . .

mazaje:

Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.

It is worth noting that Paul does not place Jesus in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Jesus in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Jesus is a heavenly being, not a historical person. . . . . . .

davidylan:

This makes no sense . . . at all . . . for instance from tacitus - "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also."

Does that sound like someone who was merely "challenging a myth"? That was CLEARLY attributing that Christ did exist, He did have a following (christians), christianity originated from Judeah and it spread far and wide up into Rome.

There are two things i would like to point out briefly:

1. You cant reserve certain arguments for the bible ALONE. To say that because the early historians were somehow not alive during the time of Christ invalidates their historical accounts is ludicrous. I notice this argument is only used when it comes to denouncing the bible . . . its funny however that VIRTUALLY 100% of the pagan claims that are also used by you and others to criticize the bible where also written by men who didnt exist until thousands of yrs after these mythical gods ever existed.

2. Rushing off to plagiarize internet arguments and co-opting it as urs is dishonest.

mazaje:

Even Tacitus called the Jesus story a superstition, a superstition is not reality is it? Here it is again from the annals. . , 

"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of,  Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious [or wicked] superstition [Christianity] was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."

mazaje:

My arguments is NOT if Jesus existed or not, that is not my argument, as I said there is more evidence to show that prophet Mohammed existed than that of Jesus, his grave is still there in Saudi Arabia, what I am more interested in is the reality of the story, its very possible that there was a man behind the Jesus myth. just like the Mohammed myth and other mythical stories like that of Buddah etc

mazaje:

Some one talking about Obama in 100 or 200 years time after his death without ever seeing Obama is only relying on hear say assuming there are no videos and other electronic recordings of Obama. . . . . . .Tacitus and all were writing over 100 years after the death of Jesus, how is their written account of Jesus not hear say?