RE: Time to embrace Islam!
December 11, 2019 at 5:57 pm
(This post was last modified: December 11, 2019 at 6:04 pm by Abaddon_ire.)
(December 11, 2019 at 5:28 pm)maxolla Wrote: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.(December 11, 2019 at 5:00 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: 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.
(December 11, 2019 at 5:28 pm)maxolla Wrote: 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.
(December 11, 2019 at 5:28 pm)maxolla Wrote: 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.
(December 11, 2019 at 5:28 pm)maxolla Wrote: 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?
(December 11, 2019 at 5:28 pm)maxolla Wrote: That’s what I don’t get about atheism. I understand agnosticism in that it claims to not know.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.
My question is to the atheist, how do you know there is know God?
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.
(December 11, 2019 at 5:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(December 11, 2019 at 5:01 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: 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.