Jesus Story IS NOT Original.....

[MW0082]

He could calm the seas, he could raise the dead, he could heal the blind, but we dare not assume he could write just because he could read, let's not push the envelope beyond the questionable truth of that verse.

Agreed, it's a bit absurd and outlandish to say he can do miracles and read but could not write... And how can one read but not write? Would you not have writing abilities just from being able to decipher words...... Thats another huge stretch for the religious propaganda.....

 

[dogsgod]

And you realize that those are mythical attributes, most likely attributed to him afterwards. If there is going to be a debate, please keep it logical. Stop using these tired cop-outs.

OK, so after no one believed he could necessarily write just because he could read they gave him mythical attributes so he could calm the seas, raise the dead, and heal the blind.

 

[dogsgod]

Agreed, it's a bit absurd and outlandish to say he can do miracles and read but could not write... And how can one read but not write? Would you not have writing abilities just from being able to decipher words...... Thats another huge stretch for the religious propaganda.....

That Hebrew is tricky stuff.

 

[MW0082]

That Hebrew is tricky stuff.

Yeah it must be if one can read it but not write it..... Now that is the only illogical debating going on ...

 

[fallingblood]

Agreed, it's a bit absurd and outlandish to say he can do miracles and read but could not write... And how can one read but not write? Would you not have writing abilities just from being able to decipher words...... Thats another huge stretch for the religious propaganda.....

Do you understand how illogical this is?

Maybe you need to do some more research. But that wouldn't be as easy as simply staying ignorant. I mean, why debate when you're on a debate forum.

 

[fallingblood]

I have a question for those who believe that Jesus did not exist. When will you actually debate the subject? I mean, there are countless points that have been brought up that you guys won't actually address. Instead, you make childish remarks that only show your ignorance. Do you ever get sick of the mental masturbation you're doing?

 

[MW0082]

Do you understand how illogical this is?

Maybe you need to do some more research. But that wouldn't be as easy as simply staying ignorant. I mean, why debate when you're on a debate forum.

Thats all you say to everything, you're obviously the one who cannot debate. Seeing how you have to resort to calling names, and being down right rude......

Maybe you need to take a class in etiquette and actually prove a point instead of trying to degrade others. Must be a sad person on the other side of that avatar. Sorry you're precious scriptures are wrong, sorry jesus never existed... life goes on :drool:

 

[MW0082]

I have a question for those who believe that Jesus did not exist. When will you actually debate the subject? I mean, there are countless points that have been brought up that you guys won't actually address. Instead, you make childish remarks that only show your ignorance. Do you ever get sick of the mental masturbation you're doing?

Do you ever get sick of your self rightous attitude? I have seen a million posts from Dogs and myself you have blatantly ignored.

The bottom line is you have no proof Jesus existed. ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!! I don't have to prove to you he didn't exist, when you can't even prove he did. What kind of childish thinking is that? Come back with something valuable or get a hobby....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

First, Rabbi still meant something different. The fact that the verse says he read does not mean he was a Rabbi. The term Rabbi really didn't take on significance until after 70 C.E., when Rabbinical Judaism took center stage. Rabbi during the first century was more of a term for a teacher. It did not require that person to be able to read or to write.

As for the actual verse, at most, it meant he could read. That does not translate to him being able to write. The two did not go hand in hand in ancient times. Not to mention, the scripture had a high chance of being in Hebrew. If this is true, then there would be little reason to assume he could write, or even had an extensive knowledge of Hebrew anyway.

Even if it was in Greek though, it still wouldn't matter. All that can be assumed from that verse is that Jesus had a working knowledge of religious reading.

That isn't even covering the idea that various scholars believe that the verse is not accurate anyway.

I can sort of agree with this. John 8:6, 8:8 says he wrote on the ground but who knows if he was just doodling or what. No info is given. The same is the case with Rev. 3:12. The info there comes off more figuratively.

 

[dogsgod]

That isn't even covering the idea that various scholars believe that the verse is not accurate anyway.

The claim is that The Gospels are essentially historical, but inflated, accounts of a supposed life of Jesus. Discounting miraculous powers as exaggerations is one thing but to question something as plausible as the verses regarding this Jesus' ability to read because it suddenly becomes very inconveneint when one ponders why this Jesus didn't put pen to paper only serves to make us wonder what slippery little eels we are dealing with. Please, cut the excuses for what is not there and give us something that is there.

 

[dogsgod]

Truth be known, I'm on a quest for the historical Jesus, so far all I have discovered is excuses.

 

[logician]

I have a question for those who believe that Jesus did not exist. When will you actually debate the subject? I mean, there are countless points that have been brought up that you guys won't actually address. Instead, you make childish remarks that only show your ignorance. Do you ever get sick of the mental masturbation you're doing?

Look in a mirror, you described yourself to a "T". You're the one here who has a chip on your shoulder (among a few others), which indicates your strong bias. Either put up some hard evidence, or move on.

 

[fallingblood]

Thats all you say to everything, you're obviously the one who cannot debate. Seeing how you have to resort to calling names, and being down right rude......

Maybe you need to take a class in etiquette and actually prove a point instead of trying to degrade others. Must be a sad person on the other side of that avatar. Sorry you're precious scriptures are wrong, sorry jesus never existed... life goes on :drool:

Did I not go through the article you posted and explain why it was wrong? Did you ever offer a rebuttal?

More so, when did I call anyone a name?

 

[fallingblood]

Do you ever get sick of your self rightous attitude? I have seen a million posts from Dogs and myself you have blatantly ignored.

The bottom line is you have no proof Jesus existed. ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!! I don't have to prove to you he didn't exist, when you can't even prove he did. What kind of childish thinking is that? Come back with something valuable or get a hobby....

Again, did I not offer a rebuttal to the article you linked to? I've offered a lot of information on this thread, yet, there have been few rebuttals. As for you, you've posted very little actual information. It's more cop-outs such as the one here.

 

[AxisMundi]

Actually said paragraphs are not quite easily to dismiss if one is knowledgable on the subject. The fact is this, the majority of scholars, the experts on the subject, do not dismiss the references. They do not state that they are forgeries. The common consensus on the subject is that the longer reference did in fact contain some reference to Jesus, but that at a later time, someone added additional information into the reference.

More so, the shorter passage is nearly universally accepted as authentic. The Wiki link both of us have mentioned states this to be true as well. So unless you provide some evidence for your position, it simply is unfounded.

As for hearsay, that is what much of history is. To rule out hearsay in history would rule out the mass of ideas that we have. You might as well throw out our newspapers, history books, etc. Even in a court of law, hearsay is allowed at times. The hearsay argument simply is ignorant and a cop out.

1. Said articles are easily dismissed, except for those desperate to prove and validate their religion. The mere fact that this is also the ONLY contemporary source jsut makes it worse. Considering your Christ figure is said to ahve been a Rabbi, the fact he never once put pen to paper is highly suspicious as well.

2. Shorter paragraph as well.

3. How is hearsay a "cop out"? If you wern't there, yuo don't knwo what happened. Ever do the excersise in grade school where one kid starts a story, and the next is supposed to repeat it? hearsay isn't proof, sorry.

If tat is true with the fact that their existed a historical Jesus, then please, point that out.

Already have, ad nauseum.

 

[MW0082]

Did I not go through the article you posted and explain why it was wrong? Did you ever offer a rebuttal?

More so, when did I call anyone a name?

Wow you responded to one, congratulations. You still side step the rest and then call out tohers for doing so to you.....really?

And you implied I was ignorant for not agreeing with you.......... because I could not possibly done any research. Again get some etiquette and learn to debate. not force your opinion onto others....

 

[AxisMundi]

Again, did I not offer a rebuttal to the article you linked to? I've offered a lot of information on this thread, yet, there have been few rebuttals. As for you, you've posted very little actual information. It's more cop-outs such as the one here.

You have offered only a rebuttle, of little substance, I'm afraid.

 

[fallingblood]

Look in a mirror, you described yourself to a "T". You're the one here who has a chip on your shoulder (among a few others), which indicates your strong bias. Either put up some hard evidence, or move on.

I've put up the evidence, that has yet to be debated. Your camp, the ones who do not believe Jesus existed, have posted little. Now, Dogsgod has had the most in depth rebuttals, but even then, he has ignored much of the information that has been posted and has offered no evidence that Jesus did not exist.

Plus, as I explained in another thread, the idea that Jesus was just a myth is illogical. See here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/104439-why-jesus-myth-illogical.html

I would be happy to see an in depth rebuttal of what I, and others on these couple of threads have stated. I would be very interested to see any credible evidence that Jesus did not exist. However, this has yet to be shown. But please, be my guest and do so.

 

[MW0082]

Again, did I not offer a rebuttal to the article you linked to? I've offered a lot of information on this thread, yet, there have been few rebuttals. As for you, you've posted very little actual information. It's more cop-outs such as the one here.

the only one with cop outs is you. On another note the only thing you pointed out that it was from 1922, big whoop. That doesn't discredit it. Your bible is from when...? Yet somethign from 1922 is not credible. Oxymoron to a T right there.....

 

[fallingblood]

Wow you responded to one, congratulations. You still side step the rest and then call out tohers for doing so to you.....really?

I offered a rebuttal to the article you provided. If there are more, than I will do so again.

And you implied I was ignorant for not agreeing with you.......... because I could not possibly done any research. Again get some etiquette and learn to debate. not force your opinion onto others....

Calling you ignorant is not name calling. It means you are uninformed on a particular subject.

Now, I think you need to learn what a debate is. You offered a position, I offered a rebuttal. You have yet to offer anything after that. The ball is in your court. Time to stop trying to pass the buck and put forth any type of argument. Preferably a logical one.