things that interest you that others dont care about probably thread

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by veritas

You have only been given two choices for how you came to be. GOD CREATED THIS or THIS SLOWWWLY EVOLVED.

Both cannot be proven scientifically as neither can be directly observed.

So you have faith that you are right and you have faith that there is no God.

Fair?

Lmao. Do you even read what I type?
Clearly not, or you wouldn’t type some bullshit like “you have faith that you are right and you have faith that there is no god.”
I clearly stated above that I believe very little to be safely accepted as ultimate truth, so no, I don’t have “faith” in either of those things

[veritas]

So you are now all of a sudden willing to admit that there might be a God and that you were wrong about all those years you said there was definetly not.?

[Destroyer]

I’ve never said there was definitely not
Simply that I see no reason to believe there is
And that you don’t know anything definitely either

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by veritas

First of all you err in history.

Why would the Jews create Jesus? If there was a rebellion and he their leader why would we not have heard about this?

Maybe Jesus was real and he refused to be their king plus he upset the jew cucks who lived off the Roman scraps so they killed him?

Oh wait....

im not against the bolded part. you assume i want him to have not existed, i am simply stating there isn't enough evidence supporting it, unless you are willing to believe historians passing mentions more than a generation after his alleged death.

when i say jews in this context i am referring to them as a people, not solely as jews in the sense of religion.

also if there was a rebellion the "rebellion" was stamped out before it began. and using the same historical sources you can come to this conclusion. a man sarcastically labelled the king of the jews (inri) was crucified between two rebels. the modern translation is "thieves" but the direct translation was "bandits" but there was no word for bandits in that time. a bandit was a rebel.

rebels go against the state. jesus preaching his gospels and garnering a following would have been alarming to the jews who were under the roman yoke. the romans already occupied the region so those in power wouldn't want to be killed for not being able to maintain the peace. so when romans catch wind of someone amassing numbers and defying the jewish leadership installed, they would obviously execute them to put down the eventual uprising.

so when studying the history of judea you find it rife with uprisings and attempts to overthrow the rule from the beginning. in 6 AD when they first brought in roman soldiers and began exacting a tax throughout when jesus existed to the actual violent jewish rebellions etc. the only records of jesus and his uprising come from biblical sources, and historical mentions more than a generation after his alleged life, and after actual armed rebellions and wars.

so me concluding he is an amalgamation of these events for jewish people to rally behind in the creation of a new religion, since their old religion failed them doesn't seem so far fetched. but you are correct in assuming that is my belief. the difference in our beliefs is i know mine is firmly planted in my own thoughts and logic, which can change at a moments notice if new evidence was introduced. where you seem to think yours is infallible fact, you are putting much more weight into your source(s), and standing by it. i take your source(s) and simply have them as one tentpole in the tent of my views on the matter

also a main difference is i have no vested interest in being correct since i don't prescribe religious beliefs to the matter, and i just view it as historical events

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

I’ve never said there was definitely not
Simply that I see no reason to believe there is
And that you don’t know anything definitely either

I do though.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

im not against the bolded part. you assume i want him to have not existed, i am simply stating there isn't enough evidence supporting it, unless you are willing to believe historians passing mentions more than a generation after his alleged death.

when i say jews in this context i am referring to them as a people, not solely as jews in the sense of religion.

also if there was a rebellion the "rebellion" was stamped out before it began. and using the same historical sources you can come to this conclusion. a man sarcastically labelled the king of the jews (inri) was crucified between two rebels. the modern translation is "thieves" but the direct translation was "bandits" but there was no word for bandits in that time. a bandit was a rebel.

rebels go against the state. jesus preaching his gospels and garnering a following would have been alarming to the jews who were under the roman yoke. the romans already occupied the region so those in power wouldn't want to be killed for not being able to maintain the peace. so when romans catch wind of someone amassing numbers and defying the jewish leadership installed, they would obviously execute them to put down the eventual uprising.

so when studying the history of judea you find it rife with uprisings and attempts to overthrow the rule from the beginning. in 6 AD when they first brought in roman soldiers and began exacting a tax throughout when jesus existed to the actual violent jewish rebellions etc. the only records of jesus and his uprising come from biblical sources, and historical mentions more than a generation after his alleged life, and after actual armed rebellions and wars.

so me concluding he is an amalgamation of these events for jewish people to rally behind in the creation of a new religion, since their old religion failed them doesn't seem so far fetched. but you are correct in assuming that is my belief. the difference in our beliefs is i know mine is firmly planted in my own thoughts and logic, which can change at a moments notice if new evidence was introduced. where you seem to think yours is infallible fact, you are putting much more weight into your source(s), and standing by it. i take your source(s) and simply have them as one tentpole in the tent of my views on the matter

also a main difference is i have no vested interest in being correct since i don't prescribe religious beliefs to the matter, and i just view it as historical events

Could he not be both? Could he not be both God manifest in the flesh who refused to go along with the rebellion because he had his own greater motives?

Fair?

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by veritas

Could he not be both? Could he not be both God manifest in the flesh who refused to go along with the rebellion because he had his own greater motives?

Fair?

its fair for you to believe whatever you wish.

to me there is no logic in this statement because the biblical god never operated like this, and i don't see what the point of it would be. the tone shift from the old testament to the new simply lends more to my point of view when looking at it from a place of logic and reason, removed from the desire of wanting to believe something. the new testament being the christian outlook of course.

but lets go with your line of thinking, if jesus was god manifest in the flesh who didn't go along with the uprising/rebellion, why did he act in violence against the moneychangers and such in the temple?

[veritas]

Because of what they represented. You err in the scriptures.

Also....think about this: why did the Jew cucks not try to produce a body. All they us to do was produce a body and poof! Rebellion leader is just a man. Rebellion over. No prophesied King to save you!

Fair?

[The Dead Poet]

I do not believe in ANY god. If the one you're talking about does exist, he's kind of an asshole.

[Destroyer]

We were talking about the historical Jesus though.
Have you ever heard of Frank "Rocky" Fiegel? He was a sailor who lived in Chester, Illinois in the 1920's and 30's. He was a bachelor and was said to be good with his fists.
A comic artist named Elzie Crisler Segar sent him checks in the 1930's.
Why? Because he was the basis for Popeye the Sailor.
Does this mean Popeye was a real person? Even now, 80-some-odd years later? Given how much the character has evolved over that time?
Now look at the character of Jesus in the bible. It's 2000 years later. Is it really correct to say that that character was a real person?

It suffers from the "my friend Bob" problem.

My friend Bob is a great guy. He's 6'4", blonde, a corporal in the army and can nail the center of the ace of spades from 500 yards.

Well, OK. He can't actually nail the ace of spades. He's never shot a gun in his life.

And, OK. He isn't a corporal. He tried to enlist but was turned away.

And, OK. He was turned away because he's 4'3" and weighs 350 pounds.

And, OK. His name isn't Bob. It's Charlene. And she's a woman and not that great.

At what point does this no longer become "my friend Bob"?

It's the same with the character of Jesus.

There's no evidence to support that the historical person existed and when people start talking about the "historical Jesus", all the major pieces of his life get wiped out just like with Bob.

OK, he wasn't from Nazareth.

OK, he wasn't born in Bethlehem.

OK, he didn't actually do this, that, or the other think he's said to have done.

And, OK. His name wasn't Jesus.

At some point, you have to admit that whatever "historical" person the character in the bible may or may not have been based on bears no actual resemblance to the person it may or may not have been based on.

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by veritas

Because of what they represented. You err in the scriptures.

Also....think about this: why did the Jew cucks not try to produce a body. All they us to do was produce a body and poof! Rebellion leader is just a man. Rebellion over. No prophesied King to save you!

Fair?

i don't understand your narrative for rebellion, we already established that if jesus was an actual human being, even a human being that was god manifested in the flesh, his rebellion never happened. it was squashed before it started. the subsequent rebellions occurred generations after his alleged death and had nothing to do with him so producing his body makes no sense. it was my hypothesis that later christians created jesus and modeled him after an amalgamation of all the uprisings and rebellions. not that those uprisings were ABOUT jesus.

you seem to bring this to god, which is fine. im not arguing against your belief in nonsense. have at it. im simply debating the historical likelihood of a human being named jesus christ.

[sral]

Originally Posted by Ghost1

I've personally experienced miracles in my own life that I could go into detail on but that wouldn't do us any good here when you are stating you need to personally witness them.

As I said tho there are modern miracles in medicine occurring consistently that defy the natural laws of science to this day.

The cosmological and teleological arguments for intelligent design also make a pretty convincing case for me personally.

If science can make a more probable cause for the creation of the universe and the creation of life then I'd be a little more skeptical to Jesus performing miracles.

What are these miracles?

I'm intrigued

[veritas]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

i don't understand your narrative for rebellion, we already established that if jesus was an actual human being, even a human being that was god manifested in the flesh, his rebellion never happened. it was squashed before it started. the subsequent rebellions occurred generations after his alleged death and had nothing to do with him so producing his body makes no sense. it was my hypothesis that later christians created jesus and modeled him after an amalgamation of all the uprisings and rebellions. not that those uprisings were ABOUT jesus.

you seem to bring this to god, which is fine. im not arguing against your belief in nonsense. have at it. im simply debating the historical likelihood of a human being named jesus christ.

You helped me make another point actually. The first is that you still don’t understand what I meant about him choosing to not rebel *to help make your point!*

Now the new point that his rebellion was very successful. Do you see how?

[Eŋg]

just when i thought my tepid/unwanted back and forth with cucklehead couldn't make this thread any worse.

bravo, guys. bravo.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

We were talking about the historical Jesus though.
Have you ever heard of Frank "Rocky" Fiegel? He was a sailor who lived in Chester, Illinois in the 1920's and 30's. He was a bachelor and was said to be good with his fists.
A comic artist named Elzie Crisler Segar sent him checks in the 1930's.
Why? Because he was the basis for Popeye the Sailor.
Does this mean Popeye was a real person? Even now, 80-some-odd years later? Given how much the character has evolved over that time?
Now look at the character of Jesus in the bible. It's 2000 years later. Is it really correct to say that that character was a real person?

It suffers from the "my friend Bob" problem.

My friend Bob is a great guy. He's 6'4", blonde, a corporal in the army and can nail the center of the ace of spades from 500 yards.

Well, OK. He can't actually nail the ace of spades. He's never shot a gun in his life.

And, OK. He isn't a corporal. He tried to enlist but was turned away.

And, OK. He was turned away because he's 4'3" and weighs 350 pounds.

And, OK. His name isn't Bob. It's Charlene. And she's a woman and not that great.

At what point does this no longer become "my friend Bob"?

It's the same with the character of Jesus.

There's no evidence to support that the historical person existed and when people start talking about the "historical Jesus", all the major pieces of his life get wiped out just like with Bob.

OK, he wasn't from Nazareth.

OK, he wasn't born in Bethlehem.

OK, he didn't actually do this, that, or the other think he's said to have done.

And, OK. His name wasn't Jesus.

At some point, you have to admit that whatever "historical" person the character in the bible may or may not have been based on bears no actual resemblance to the person it may or may not have been based on.

Why? And have you ever studied the Bible?

[Destroyer]

No, I’ve also never studied The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

[Destroyer]

I have read both though

[uh-oh]

the only thing veritas consistently proves is engaging him in conversation is useless. now he will go on to claim that a make believe person somehow won a rebellion because "his followers" created a religion that eventually overtook the government he rebelled against. not realizing the religion he credits was created by that government and used to further subjugate and rule its populace

[Destroyer]

I’m gonna need him to move past the one sentence and then “fair?” method of engagement he employs or I’m moving on

[veritas]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

the only thing veritas consistently proves is engaging him in conversation is useless. now he will go on to claim that a make believe person somehow won a rebellion because "his followers" created a religion that eventually overtook the government he rebelled against. not realizing the religion he credits was created by that government and used to further subjugate and rule its populace

So rome created a religion to overthrow itself?

So the Jews created a religion that the vast majority still do not believe in?

Engaging me is useless translates to I expose the flaws in your thinking.