Conquer Club

Jasmine_me wrote:

Heimdall wrote:

radiojake wrote:

Heimdall wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:You can't prove there is no God. You can make assumptions and theories but you can never prove it.

WM

And you can't prove there are no Unicorns.

Or the spaghetti flying monster

And since you can't prove they don't exist, then they must exist just like God

but you dont even have a bible that proves unicorn exist..but you have a Bible that proves God exist...

But I have seen books with pictures of Unicorns !
You have to understand that in terms of actual proof the bible is no more valid than many other books, in terms of validated history it is certainly less so in fact.

comic boy wrote:

Jasmine_me wrote:

Heimdall wrote:

radiojake wrote:

Heimdall wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:You can't prove there is no God. You can make assumptions and theories but you can never prove it.

WM

And you can't prove there are no Unicorns.

Or the spaghetti flying monster

And since you can't prove they don't exist, then they must exist just like God

but you dont even have a bible that proves unicorn exist..but you have a Bible that proves God exist...

But I have seen books with pictures of Unicorns !
You have to understand that in terms of actual proof the bible is no more valid than many other books, in terms of validated history it is certainly less so in fact.

Agreed, I'd put it on par with Aesop's fables. Morality speaking, good, factually, less so. Not to mention that the people studying the Dead Sea Scrolls noticed that the phrase 'son of god' was used as a greeting and a compliment, not as literal.

"dead sea scrolls" are a cult's beliefs, not a christian belief. nothing to them...

And The Word will never die, just like this thread.

Mr_Adams wrote:"dead sea scrolls" are a cult's beliefs, not a christian belief. nothing to them...

They were written by the precursor believers to Xianity. Most of the scrolls found contained parts of the bible, so by saying that you're discounting your own beliefs.

Mr_Adams wrote:"dead sea scrolls" are a cult's beliefs, not a christian belief. nothing to them...

Yeah, and they weren't around when the picking and choosing was going on.

unriggable wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:"dead sea scrolls" are a cult's beliefs, not a christian belief. nothing to them...

They were written by the precursor believers to Xianity. Most of the scrolls found contained parts of the bible, so by saying that you're discounting your own beliefs.

More pertinently they were a Messianic sect yet mention Jesus not at all !
Pretty strange that they are waiting hungrily for a messiah yet apparently there is one working miracles all over the place and preaching to thousands.....but they didnt notice The Dead Sea Scrolls were written at the time of Jesus by people who lived in the actual area and they have not been edited or rewritten to suit an agenda,anybody who dismisses them is a fool or in denial.

Considering one the fragments is a copy of Mark's Gospel I'd be rather inclined to say they did. Furthermore, they were not written "at the time of Jesus", some were, but they span a time frame from the early 1st B.C.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Considering one the fragments is a copy of Mark's Gospel I'd be rather inclined to say they did. Furthermore, they were not written "at the time of Jesus", some were, but they span a time frame from the early 1st B.C.

They were written right up to the revolt against Rome, which I think was AD 68 , consequently they cover the entire span of Jesus life. The fragment of 'Marks Gospel ' does not mention Jesus though does it ?

comic boy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Considering one the fragments is a copy of Mark's Gospel I'd be rather inclined to say they did. Furthermore, they were not written "at the time of Jesus", some were, but they span a time frame from the early 1st B.C.

They were written right up to the revolt against Rome, which I think was AD 68 , consequently they cover the entire span of Jesus life. The fragment of 'Marks Gospel ' does not mention Jesus though does it ?

If you're denying Jesus existence, you do rank with xtra nd his conspiracists.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Considering one the fragments is a copy of Mark's Gospel I'd be rather inclined to say they did. Furthermore, they were not written "at the time of Jesus", some were, but they span a time frame from the early 1st B.C.

They were written right up to the revolt against Rome, which I think was AD 68 , consequently they cover the entire span of Jesus life. The fragment of 'Marks Gospel ' does not mention Jesus though does it ?

If you're denying Jesus existence, you do rank with xtra nd his conspiracists.

So you don't think it's strange that he isn't mentioned in those scrolls?

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Considering one the fragments is a copy of Mark's Gospel I'd be rather inclined to say they did. Furthermore, they were not written "at the time of Jesus", some were, but they span a time frame from the early 1st B.C.

They were written right up to the revolt against Rome, which I think was AD 68 , consequently they cover the entire span of Jesus life. The fragment of 'Marks Gospel ' does not mention Jesus though does it ?

If you're denying Jesus existence, you do rank with xtra nd his conspiracists.

So you don't think it's strange that he isn't mentioned in those scrolls?

The DSS are fragmented documents of a non-rabbinic form of Judaism which was destroyed by the Roman army. There really isn't any need for them to mention Jesus, this is only their textual interpretations of OT passages.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Considering one the fragments is a copy of Mark's Gospel I'd be rather inclined to say they did. Furthermore, they were not written "at the time of Jesus", some were, but they span a time frame from the early 1st B.C.

They were written right up to the revolt against Rome, which I think was AD 68 , consequently they cover the entire span of Jesus life. The fragment of 'Marks Gospel ' does not mention Jesus though does it ?

If you're denying Jesus existence, you do rank with xtra nd his conspiracists.

Rather than trying to change the subject or deliberately mislead ( you know full well that the fragment is only proposed as possibly part of Marks Gospel,the majority of scholars disagree) why dont you address my obvious point. The non existence of references to Jesus strongly suggest that his deeds,whatever they may have been,were vastly exagerated. I dont think your uninteligent so your constant distortion,exactly where did I state that Jesus did not exist, smacks of evasion and an unwillingness to debate an uncomfortable point.

As I've mentioned, the dead sea scrolls are only OT/Scripture related documents of an obscure Jewish sect discovered by accident, not the Judea Times publishing house.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Considering one the fragments is a copy of Mark's Gospel I'd be rather inclined to say they did. Furthermore, they were not written "at the time of Jesus", some were, but they span a time frame from the early 1st B.C.

They were written right up to the revolt against Rome, which I think was AD 68 , consequently they cover the entire span of Jesus life. The fragment of 'Marks Gospel ' does not mention Jesus though does it ?

If you're denying Jesus existence, you do rank with xtra nd his conspiracists.

So you don't think it's strange that he isn't mentioned in those scrolls?

The DSS are fragmented documents of a non-rabbinic form of Judaism which was destroyed by the Roman army. There really isn't any need for them to mention Jesus, this is only their textual interpretations of OT passages.

This is a mix of contention ( we dont know if the Romans destroyed part of the texts - its unlikely they would have left so much isnt it ? ) and plain
distortion - they are NOT all OT interpretations,only some are . The others describe the practices of the sect and how they lived their lives,they give a contemporary account of the period and therefore are highly relevent. A messianic sect not mentioning the messiah,now who is being foolish ?

To see the bible as isolated from a whole movement of multi-cultural religious philosophy is ridiculous. It is like denying that Christianity fulfills the same fundamental needs as Sun worship did for our distant ancestors.

A messianic sect, there were plenty at that time (interestingly, only one has survivedmore than a couple centuries). There are plenty of other sources from Jospehus to Pliny mentionning Christ and Christians. Yu're clutching at straws, face it.

Napoleon Ier wrote:A messianic sect, there were plenty at that time (interestingly, only one has survivedmore than a couple centuries). There are plenty of other sources from Jospehus to Pliny mentionning Christ and Christians. Yu're clutching at straws, face it.

Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Let's see, 8 arguments against authenticity and 3 arguments for. Majority rules.

And Pliny the Elder didn't write about Christianity (at least not anything of note or debate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder
Pliny the Younger did in one of his letters, but that was a letter that formed the basis for when and why Christians were to be executed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger

I don't believe I actually have to argue against people who deny Christ existed. The last "experts" to do that were Soviet historians. his is ridiculous. Find me one scholar that disagrees. As for Pliny, so what? His letter. if you other to read it, details how the Christians are growing and established sect, and he writes in 117 AD.

Napoleon Ier wrote:I don't believe I actually have to argue against people who deny Christ existed. The last "experts" to do that were Soviet historians. his is ridiculous. Find me one scholar that disagrees. As for Pliny, so what? His letter. if you other to read it, details how the Christians are growing and established sect, and he writes in 117 AD.

Show me one post that denies his existence,your point is flawed and you have shown yourself to be a fraud !

Napoleon Ier wrote:I don't believe I actually have to argue against people who deny Christ existed. The last "experts" to do that were Soviet historians. his is ridiculous. Find me one scholar that disagrees. As for Pliny, so what? His letter. if you other to read it, details how the Christians are growing and established sect, and he writes in 117 AD.

In a moment of shock and awe, I shall entirely agree with Nappy here. From a 'professional' perspective we can certainly lay doubt on his existence if we scrutinise the sources, yet if we are to treat Jesus in the same manner as any other historical figure we cannot really deny he existed. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests there was a preacher or holy man around at the time named Jesus (or whatever translation can be argued for as a name).

Not that that says anything about divinity...

comic boy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:I don't believe I actually have to argue against people who deny Christ existed. The last "experts" to do that were Soviet historians. his is ridiculous. Find me one scholar that disagrees. As for Pliny, so what? His letter. if you other to read it, details how the Christians are growing and established sect, and he writes in 117 AD.

Show me one post that denies his existence,your point is flawed and you have shown yourself to be a fraud !

right....I believe Jesus was a historical person, you hence ask me to show you a post that denies his existence, then say I'm a fraud and my point is flawed....bizarre
So people who believe in a historical Jesus are flawed and fraudulent are they?
I suppose my belief in Julius Caesar, King Henry VIII and Jhn Kennedy make me a crazy bigoted homophobe do they?

Napoleon Ier wrote:right....I believe Jesus was a historical person, you hence ask me to show you a post that denies his existence, then say I'm a fraud and my point is flawed....bizarre
So people who believe in a historical Jesus are flawed and fraudulent are they?
I suppose my belief in Julius Caesar, King Henry VIII and Jhn Kennedy make me a crazy bigoted homophobe do they?

The only thing you're showing us is that you are a histrionic individual with limited reading comprehension.

All I said was that the authenticity of Josephus' writing was under debate, and that Pliny never talked about Jesus. How that constitutes a denial of the existence of Jesus, I have no idea.

vtmarik wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:right....I believe Jesus was a historical person, you hence ask me to show you a post that denies his existence, then say I'm a fraud and my point is flawed....bizarre
So people who believe in a historical Jesus are flawed and fraudulent are they?
I suppose my belief in Julius Caesar, King Henry VIII and Jhn Kennedy make me a crazy bigoted homophobe do they?

The only thing you're showing us is that you are a histrionic individual with limited reading comprehension.

All I said was that the authenticity of Josephus' writing was under debate, and that Pliny never talked about Jesus. How that constitutes a denial of the existence of Jesus, I have no idea.

Fine, then why are we debating?. I was talking to comicboy. You haven't made any flagrantly stupid posts I know of. Yet.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Fine, then why are we debating?. I was talking to comicboy. You haven't made any flagrantly stupid posts I know of. Yet.

Just a friendly reminder to try and keep your posts free of histrionics, they tend to damage your credibility.