[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[R00tKiT]

If the jesus myth was a problem, then perhaps mo shouldn't have used it as the basis of his own grift.

A better way to look at the whole thing is this : Muhammad seemed to come up with a very sensible story putting every prophet in his place, all the elements of christian belief present in the Qur'an point to the fact that you have to be an established scholar to fabricate the Islamic holy book.

Add that to the fact that there was no Arabic translation of the Bible in the time of Muhammmad.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That is dishonestly misleading. And I think you know why.

Really? Then you have not been looking. Richard Carrier springs to mind.

Sheesh. Those gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. What made you think they were?
Nope.  

So what? Just because you refuse to look means nothing. Second, there is nothing unusual about a wandering apocalyptic preacher in the Levant at that time.

It doesn't matter either way.

Your gospels were written 40-200 years after the events depicted.

 In much the same way that jesus could simply be a wandering jewish apocalyptic rabbi (we know there were boatloads of those in the Levant at the time) upon whom later myths were built, King Arthur may merely be a Saxon Chieftain (we know there were boatloads of those in Saxon England at the time) upon whom later myths were built. The historicity of King Arthur remains an open question.

They have two things in common. Both may well actually be historical persons upon whom later mythologies were constructed, and secondly,  I really don't care a lot about either.

At least the fiction arising from King Arthur is entertaining. The jesus fiction is merely dull, unimaginative and internally inconsistent.

King Arthur and jesus are very similar cases. Both were likely real, historical people. Both have had a crapton of mythology heaped upon them post mortem. Both may be amalgams of multiple characters in play in their own times.

For example, Eleazar ben Simon was a contemporary of jesus and being raised in Galilee. Might even have me jesus for all we know. But he is not in doubt as a historical figure. He was highly ranked in the priesthood, led a war against Rome and generally ticked more boxes than jesus as a Messiah figure.

Interesting points.  Never heard of Eleazar ben Simon before now.  Arguing the existence of historical figures is not something I have the time for.  The existence of, for instance Muhammad, Gandhi, as well as Jesus and his disciples is too well documented to refute.  Of course proving a negative is almost impossible in the first place.  That’s what I don’t get about atheism.  I understand agnosticism in that it claims to not know.  

My question is to the atheist, how do you know there is know God?

You keep making this claim, yet you consistently fail to produce any real documentation for Jesus.

You realize that we've got photographs and films of Gandhi, right?  Not sure why you'd even bring that up.

I don't 'know' there is no God. I believe there is no God.  This has been explained to you several times in this thread.  How are you not getting it?

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

A better way to look at the whole thing is this : Muhammad seemed to come up with a very sensible story putting every prophet in his place, all the elements of christian belief present in the Qur'an point to the fact that you have to be an established scholar to fabricate the Islamic holy book.

Add that to the fact that there was no Arabic translation of the Bible in the time of Muhammmad.

That's not looking it's blindness

[Abaddon_ire]

That is dishonestly misleading. And I think you know why.

Really? Then you have not been looking. Richard Carrier springs to mind.

Sheesh. Those gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. What made you think they were?
Nope.  

So what? Just because you refuse to look means nothing. Second, there is nothing unusual about a wandering apocalyptic preacher in the Levant at that time.

It doesn't matter either way.

Your gospels were written 40-200 years after the events depicted.

 In much the same way that jesus could simply be a wandering jewish apocalyptic rabbi (we know there were boatloads of those in the Levant at the time) upon whom later myths were built, King Arthur may merely be a Saxon Chieftain (we know there were boatloads of those in Saxon England at the time) upon whom later myths were built. The historicity of King Arthur remains an open question.

They have two things in common. Both may well actually be historical persons upon whom later mythologies were constructed, and secondly,  I really don't care a lot about either.

At least the fiction arising from King Arthur is entertaining. The jesus fiction is merely dull, unimaginative and internally inconsistent.

King Arthur and jesus are very similar cases. Both were likely real, historical people. Both have had a crapton of mythology heaped upon them post mortem. Both may be amalgams of multiple characters in play in their own times.

For example, Eleazar ben Simon was a contemporary of jesus and being raised in Galilee. Might even have me jesus for all we know. But he is not in doubt as a historical figure. He was highly ranked in the priesthood, led a war against Rome and generally ticked more boxes than jesus as a Messiah figure.

Interesting points.  Never heard of Eleazar ben Simon before now.

Really? I was going to list a bucket of Messiah figures from the period, but decided to leave it at just one for now. The Levant at the time was a hotbed of wandering Jewish Rabbi's. They were ten-a-penny.

Arguing the existence of historical figures is not something I have the time for.

Yet you are here arguing for the historicity of jesus because somehow you DO have time for that load of crap.

The existence of, for instance Muhammad, Gandhi, as well as Jesus and his disciples is too well documented to refute.

Mo and the handhi bhendhi ghandi are documented figures. Jesus is not.

Of course proving a negative is almost impossible in the first place.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims?

That’s what I don’t get about atheism.  I understand agnosticism in that it claims to not know.  

My question is to the atheist, how do you know there is know God?

That is not atheism. Atheism claims to NOT believe in any god. I am perfectly comfortable to agree that it is possible that somehow there MIGHT be a god, but nobody has yet demonstrated that there IS a god, despite thousands of claimed gods. Not a single one has been demonstrated to exist ever. Not once in the entirety of human history.

Look at your own god. If you could demonstrate it to be real, then I would accept the evidence. But you cannot. Because you have none.

---

If the jesus myth was a problem, then perhaps mo shouldn't have used it as the basis of his own grift.

A better way to look at the whole thing is this : Muhammad seemed to come up with a very sensible story putting every prophet in his place, all the elements of christian belief present in the Qur'an point to the fact that you have to be an established scholar to fabricate the Islamic holy book.

Add that to the fact that there was no Arabic translation of the Bible in the time of Muhammmad.

You do know that it was, at that time, a largely orally transmitted superstition, right? Are you suggesting that in the time of Mo, people never told stories? Really?

Ask yourself when was the koran first written.

[WinterHold]

The historical Jesus is pretty well documented.  I have not heard of any serious historians that refute the existence of Jesus but I’m sure they exist.  Along with the historical writings of the individuals you mentioned are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  The writings of these men have been verified by those contemporary historians.  No where have I found controversy over his existence by historians of the period.  That being said, historical data can always be called into question no matter the reputation of the historian.

As for conflating the story of Jesus with King Arthur and Robin Hood...These are stories written hundreds of years after the events depicted and were known at the time as fictional characters.  Far less writings exist on, say king Arthur and it is widely known that he was a fictional character.  In short, your argument is based on a blatant false equivalence.  

Thanks

Max

Where is the documentation for an historical Jesus?  Historians and theologians have been looking for this for centuries.  Failing to find it, they've made the same mistake you're making - wishful thinking.

But the individuals I mentioned were not contemporaries of Jesus, which is what I asked you to provide. You can't point to authors I said were not contemporaneous with Jesus and cite them as contemporaries.  It's a brute fact that there are NO writings of Jesus until well after his purported death.  You'd think that a wandering preacher who performed miracles, drew crowds of thousands, and got into trouble with the authorities would have gotten some sort of mention in official channels.  There's nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

When I mentioned Arthur and Robin Hood, it wasn't a conflation, it was a comparison.  Yes, it's probably true that both of them started out as folklore, but I don't think that strengths your argument.  The idea is that a imaginary person is written about to the point where people come to accept that person as having an historical basis.

Boru

No Brian; Jesus was raised to God.
That's why there is no evidence of his dead body, his grave or remains:

Sura 4, The Quran:
http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#a...rans=en_sh

( 157 )   And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

( 158 )   Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

I always thought that raising Jesus to God meant literally that he died. But if I took the verse literally, and checked the controversy about his non-existing remains, then I will say what was said a long time ago by Muslim scholars: Jesus was raised to God in heaven.

Hard to believe but this is what the verse suggests.
I'm literally shocked.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No Brian; Jesus was raised to God.

That's why there is no evidence of his dead body, his grave or remains:

But I'm not asking for evidence of his grave or his remains.  I'm pointing out that, considering what he's alleged to have done, there ought to be some mention of him in the first third of the first century.  And there isn't.

But thanks for taking the time to refute a point I never raised.

Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

No Brian; Jesus was raised to God.
That's why there is no evidence of his dead body, his grave or remains:

That would also be true if jesus never existed, no?

[maxolla]

Interesting points.  Never heard of Eleazar ben Simon before now.

Really? I was going to list a bucket of Messiah figures from the period, but decided to leave it at just one for now. The Levant at the time was a hotbed of wandering Jewish Rabbi's. They were ten-a-penny.

Arguing the existence of historical figures is not something I have the time for.

Yet you are here arguing for the historicity of jesus because somehow you DO have time for that load of crap.

The existence of, for instance Muhammad, Gandhi, as well as Jesus and his disciples is too well documented to refute.

Mo and the handhi bhendhi ghandi are documented figures. Jesus is not.

Of course proving a negative is almost impossible in the first place.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims?

That’s what I don’t get about atheism.  I understand agnosticism in that it claims to not know.  

My question is to the atheist, how do you know there is know God?

That is not atheism. Atheism claims to NOT believe in any god. I am perfectly comfortable to agree that it is possible that somehow there MIGHT be a god, but nobody has yet demonstrated that there IS a god, despite thousands of claimed gods. Not a single one has been demonstrated to exist ever. Not once in the entirety of human history.

Look at your own god. If you could demonstrate it to be real, then I would accept the evidence. But you cannot. Because you have none.

---

A better way to look at the whole thing is this : Muhammad seemed to come up with a very sensible story putting every prophet in his place, all the elements of christian belief present in the Qur'an point to the fact that you have to be an established scholar to fabricate the Islamic holy book.

Add that to the fact that there was no Arabic translation of the Bible in the time of Muhammmad.

You do know that it was, at that time, a largely orally transmitted superstition, right? Are you suggesting that in the time of Mo, people never told stories? Really?

Ask yourself when was the koran first written.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims? 



My proof is I believe that Jesus existed and exists based on the evidence I have seen.

[The Valkyrie]

Really? I was going to list a bucket of Messiah figures from the period, but decided to leave it at just one for now. The Levant at the time was a hotbed of wandering Jewish Rabbi's. They were ten-a-penny.

Yet you are here arguing for the historicity of jesus because somehow you DO have time for that load of crap.

Mo and the handhi bhendhi ghandi are documented figures. Jesus is not.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims?

That is not atheism. Atheism claims to NOT believe in any god. I am perfectly comfortable to agree that it is possible that somehow there MIGHT be a god, but nobody has yet demonstrated that there IS a god, despite thousands of claimed gods. Not a single one has been demonstrated to exist ever. Not once in the entirety of human history.

Look at your own god. If you could demonstrate it to be real, then I would accept the evidence. But you cannot. Because you have none.

---

You do know that it was, at that time, a largely orally transmitted superstition, right? Are you suggesting that in the time of Mo, people never told stories? Really?

Ask yourself when was the koran first written.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims? 



My proof is I believe that Jesus existed and exists based on the evidence I have seen.

Burden of proof doesn’t work that way and you know it.

Non belief is not a claim, it’s a lack of belief.

I also don’t believe in bigfoot, Martians, or Sid the Yellow Space Sponge. I’m not required to disprove these things.

You make a positive claim, “there is a god”, and we don’t accept personal revelations as proof.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Really? I was going to list a bucket of Messiah figures from the period, but decided to leave it at just one for now. The Levant at the time was a hotbed of wandering Jewish Rabbi's. They were ten-a-penny.

Yet you are here arguing for the historicity of jesus because somehow you DO have time for that load of crap.

Mo and the handhi bhendhi ghandi are documented figures. Jesus is not.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims?

That is not atheism. Atheism claims to NOT believe in any god. I am perfectly comfortable to agree that it is possible that somehow there MIGHT be a god, but nobody has yet demonstrated that there IS a god, despite thousands of claimed gods. Not a single one has been demonstrated to exist ever. Not once in the entirety of human history.

Look at your own god. If you could demonstrate it to be real, then I would accept the evidence. But you cannot. Because you have none.

---

You do know that it was, at that time, a largely orally transmitted superstition, right? Are you suggesting that in the time of Mo, people never told stories? Really?

Ask yourself when was the koran first written.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims? 



My proof is I believe that Jesus existed and exists based on the evidence I have seen.

1. Non belief isn't a claim it's non acceptance of a claim  .That's not a dodge .

2. Their is no credible evidence for Jesus