• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jesus, the son of god, I think not.

Fearandloathing said:
The whip is what we need remember most....not the water into wine...

But remember, he took out the whip against the "faithful" of his day.
Click to expand...

No, he took out the whip against the corrupt and sinful money changers.
 
Logicman said:
No, he took out the whip against the corrupt and sinful money changers.
Click to expand...

Money changers who were permitted there by the faithful, and who were part of the faith community changing money into scrip for the synagogue...

Cole's notes Biblical citations do not work with me.
 
Peter King said:
You mean, people studied unscientific non-factual texts with no evidence value and renamed them "fact/truth".
Click to expand...

You can't at the present time, observe or replicate events from antiquity such as we find in the Gospels, so your science model fails miserably in that regard.

Also, please show me the peer-reviewed, replicated scientific studies that show God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist?
 
Logicman said:
You can't at the present time, observe or replicate events from antiquity such as we find in the Gospels, so your science model fails miserably in that regard.

Also, please show me the peer-reviewed, replicated scientific studies that show God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that the gospels are true.
 
I'm tired of the Philosophy forum being another Religion forum.
 
Peter King said:
There is no evidence that the gospels are true.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of evidence, including multiple, independent, historical accounts of the Gospels and various epistles. You should read:

f851c2befc8900ce226b356bc088b8c2.jpg
 
Peter King said:
There is no evidence of his existence outside of the bible.
Click to expand...

There are several problems with this one. To start with, it's untrue. Jesus is also mentioned in various documents including those by Josephus and Tacitus as well as the later gnostic gospels.

Second of all, the Bible is already a collection of writings about Jesus. Imagine a group of Einstein enthusiasts took all things written about Albert Einstein, collected them into one volume, and called it Life of Einstein. How much sense would it make for someone years later to claim that since there is no evidence outside of Life of Einstein that Einstein existed, he probably didn't?

Lastly, what you propose simply isn't how the study of history is done. We don't look for writings proving someone existed before we conclude based on the totality of evidence that they probably did. If we took that approach, the study of pre-literate cultures, cultures whose language we have yet to decipher, and cultures from whom we have yet to find any writings would be impossible.

The fact is that there is a consensus among historians that Jesus existed and it is a consensus so total, that we could argue for calling it unanimous (knowing that there will always be a few crackpots here and there). Rejecting the exitence of a historical Jesus in this day and age puts you in the company of the global warming deniers, the flat earthers, the truthers, etc.

Of course you don't have to follow the same standards of proof historians do. You could choose a far more stringent standard that would disqualify Jesus' existence from your own personal belief set. But you'd disqualify a great amount of history from your belief set in the process. Many things for which we have less evidence than we do the existence of Jesus would have to be chucked out of the window. The existence of Socrates, for example.
 
Last edited:
Why can't Jesus be a son of God? Apollo was a son of God. Thor was a son of God. Krishna and Perseus and Vulcan and Hercules and Osiris were sons of God. Why can't Jesus be a son of God?
 
I will only make one post in this thread and that is it.

The OP proved my point 100%.

I challenged him to prove that God does not exist.
That is a statement of fact that he claimed in a previous thread.

He did not state it as a belief but a 100% absolute fact that Jesus was not the Son of God.
I simply asked him to support his argument.

Not only did he fail to do it he failed to even open a discussion on it.
When confronted with this fact the next step is what he proved as well.

that he is incapable of having a civil discussion on this topic. if you look at the rants in this thread alone the OP proves that
the only thing he wanted to accomplish was to rant his anti-religious rant.

since I knew from the start that was his goal I have him a chance to prove me wrong.
he refused to do so.

so he comes here and proves me right.
 
Logicman said:
Sure you do. The magical and mythical abiogenesis swamp slime cell for one.

Here's a good read for you:

View attachment 67179920

Not only that, but miracles have now been documented.

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 Volume Set): Craig S. Keener: 9780801039522: Amazon.com: Books
Click to expand...

An unsupported theory is dropped easily. The religious should follow suite on this one and drop claiming that their unsupported religious exist also.

Logicman said:
Jesus is Lord!
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDAoFDmhRlo
 
Peter King said:
The bible as evidence? Really? You belief a storybook with no evidence value whatsoever when it comes to the myth of Jesus the son of god. A man who came into existence by immaculate conception and all the other nonsense posted about his miracles and magic tricks.
Click to expand...

Just to think Pete, your ancestors waived their perfectly working religion of Thor, that was more fitting for such a climate where you live, all an all for this nonsense! :roll:
 
Fearandloathing said:
The whip is what we need remember most....not the water into wine...

But remember, he took out the whip against the "faithful" of his day. I say this in total humility and some fear...I believe I will know him when I see him, I know when I see him now.

A moment we should all hope for and dread at the same time...
Click to expand...

See the question above about the possibility that perhaps he was perhaps also capable of eating crap. :lol:
 
Logicman said:
The resurrection is fact. Expand your horizons and look at what over a thousand scholars agree upon:

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas
Click to expand...

Meh, anecdotal evidence. Those would not do for supernatural events.

Logicman said:
You can't at the present time, observe or replicate events from antiquity such as we find in the Gospels, so your science model fails miserably in that regard.
Click to expand...

Hence no longer required to believe religious nonsense.

Logicman said:
Also, please show me the peer-reviewed, replicated scientific studies that show God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist?
Click to expand...

And enter wonderland?

No, no logically driven scientist would allow themselves to commit the logical fallacy of appealing to the unknown.
 
Fearandloathing said:
see what?

why?

You're quoting yourself and I thought it was crap the first time around.
Click to expand...

Crap? My post?

Nah, maybe a little brutal, but I think it was appropriate to appealing to emotion of fear logical fallacy in the posts presented before.

>>Fear the non-existent God punishing you with his whip!!<<
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom