DS Forums

 
 

Is this what Jesus looked like?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20-12-2016, 01:26
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
Yup. I'm not sure why bollywood is arguing against Jesus proclaiming himself as the son of God (something Muslims also do incidentally)
I'm not against it. I'm neither for nor against it. I can see one side of the argument and the other.

Once again, only atheists who try to drive a wedge among Christians, would bring it up.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 20-12-2016, 05:30
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
It well might but in fact my view is that there probably was such an historical person as Jesus. I try not to allow my 'agenda' as you call it to prejudice my judgement.

Edit I am even a supporter of some of his teachings.
But what about that poor Fig tree, Why is that bit in there if not true ?

but you are assuming that these letters are 100% accurate, that they are totally true. you assume the same of the bible, yet these letters do not physically exist, and theres nothing at all to suggest the bible is an actual accurate historic account, thats 100% accurate.

i dont give a damn about what these nebulous historians think, because i bet they are believers, people dedicated to interpreting and 'proving' the bible is correct.

the point is.... this cannot be done. and IF theres any embellishment at all, or anything thats not 100% true, then that sinks the whole religion. the point being that if it was a construct or corruption of something its based on... then it would self validate wouldnt it!

the 'evidence' i use is found in the silence that screams.
What actually screams are the facts that neither the Romans or the Jews ever denied his existence. The Romands persecuted Christians for nearly 300 years but never suggested that Jesus never existed.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 09:54
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
This is not how archaeology works. Archeologists don't excavate a settlement and conclude that because no wooden doors were found none of the buildings had wooden doors, because only half of a shoe was discovered the village had half a shoe that everyone must have passed around and shared or because all the pots are broken the people who lived there must have been very clumsy....they have to take into account that what they discover is incomplete.

Therefore, just because no contemporary accounts of Jesus have been discovered doesn't mean that none were written.
yep, i accept that.... but .... it doesnt mean there were either, it really could be that non were ever written because he was a later work of fiction.

thats the difference between us..... i can accept the others pov, even though i dont believe it.

It depends on what you mean by 'prove'. All we can do is look at what people living closer to the events claimed happened and then scrutinise their accounts with a healthy dose of scepticism. That's how history works.
yep.... and?... the point is that theres no more 'evidence' from a reliable, non biased source, for his existence then there is for him not existing.

Historians don't just give up at the first hurdle - they have to work with less than ideal evidence most of the time.
..... and do not say something is true until evidence supports it.

Does that matter? If a Muslim wants to argue that Islam was started by a guy named Muhammad somewhere near Mecca then I can't see how that would undermine anything I've said.
it matters greatly to the validity of the christian religion.


Paul refers to the fact James was Jesus' brother in passing, as if his audience already knew this and he was simply clarifying which James he was referring to. Therefore, we have to ask where this tradition came from if Jesus didn't have a brother called James.
....... says the bible! now IF the jesus story is a man made fabrication, then so is the 'evidence' to support it... ie the bible.

whats written in the bible cannot be assumed to be 100% accurate, its totally unverifiable.

What about the evidence I've given you? Something doesn't have to be watertight or conclusive to count as evidence - for example in a court trial all witnesses are heard even if there's a chance some of them might be lying. Therefore, to say that Paul's letters aren't evidence implies that you've spotted something so fundamentally wrong with them that historians shouldn't even be allowed to look at them.
its not 'evidence'... its opinion... see above.

Of course you can! Imagine if archeologists discovered a document that suggested that Christianity was started by somebody else? Or suppose one of Paul's letters denounced those who denied Jesus' existence in the same way he knocks down other teachings he disagrees with? There are lots of things we might expect to see if Jesus didn't exist.
yeah, like lack of contemporary evidence despite being a high profile miracle worker witnessed by thousands.

That's a cop-out as you can deny anybody's existence on those grounds. For example, nobody goes around suggesting that Theresa May might not exist because the left-wing version of her is very different to the right-wing one.
its not a cop out, its a fundamental point to the whole religion! its perfectly plausible that the biblical character was based on one or more ordinary preachers, it is not plausible that he was the miracle performing magician. and your jesus HAS to be the latter in order for the whole religion to be real.

That's clearly not true - we know that there were writings that the early church managed to lose (there's strong evidence for Q Source and that Paul would have written more in his life time than the few letters found in the new testament) Therefore they clearly didn't preserve every text.
not true? your mate erhman said the church has early texts, but non mention jesus. i dont know what he was referring to, ask him! hes the expert!

The early church, prior to Constantine, was very different to the medieval church with it's resources, power to take any document they want and large trade in religious relics. Considering that no other first century group did a better job of collecting and preserving important documents why do you think the first Christians would have been different?
here you go again, belittling jesus! his very job was to be a high profile messenger , YES its inconceivable that early christians wouldnt have gathered evidences, testimonies from actual witnesses out of the thousands that saw him... according to the bible.

That's irrelevant to the question of his historical existence.
getting his message across is irrelevant ?..... seriously?...

It is also a bad argument against Christianity. Do you really think that if it was announced on the news tomorrow that archeologists had discovered a contemporary written account of the feeding of the five thousand or a letter by some Roman who's granddad claims to have been there, suddenly atheists everywhere would see the light and rush down to their local church?
it would add considerable weight to the argument for him existing, id accept it as such.

on the other hand, if archeologists discovered a verifiable text from the year 33 (or whatever) that proved christianity was a construct and it was all a fabrication - would you renounce your religion?.... nah, thought not...
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 10:02
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
Not everyone. I can only speak for the 3 main religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

We do "get on" as it were. I'm no theologian so I can't give you a theological view as to why there are so many different world faiths but I can tell you at Christianity is unique in the message that it offers. Christianity is I believe, the only religion that accepts the need for a Messiah and offers one.

So you accept you could be wrong when you deny Jesus as the "biblical miracle worker" as you put it? Christians could be wrong about Christ. My hunch is we're not but it is after all, a faith.
we do 'get on'?..... really?.... after 1500 years of war, death, fighting between islam and christianity which is still going on now.... you claim you 'get on'?..

of course i accept i might be wrong about jesus the son of god existing, my hunch is though that im not, because i dont believe in magic.

you seem very sensetive to the subject of being deluded... i wonder why.

There are possibilities to everything we don't know directly. That isn't evidence. What are you basing this on? A handful of discredited mythicists?
who are discredited?.... i cite the facts laid out in 'the silence that screams' , if anything there is untrue, please prove it!

Then you've done no more than hedge your bets.

What do you think is most probable, existence or non existence.
im not hedging my bets, all along ive been quite open about the options regarding the existence or not of jesus. thats what my debate here has been about.

Jesus himself didn't insist he was the Son of God. So that's beside the point.
its the very point, if jesus wasnt the son of god, the whole religion collapses.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 10:09
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740

What actually screams are the facts that neither the Romans or the Jews ever denied his existence. The Romands persecuted Christians for nearly 300 years but never suggested that Jesus never existed.
just how would the romans do that?... how could romans deny he existed?... if he didnt exist youd get exactly what you have now........ silence.

as for the jews..... after prophesising the coming of the messiah for many years, they didnt recognise him when he was there! this very fact actually works in favour of my point! id argue the jews DID deny his existence, by not recognising the very bloke they were expecting!
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 10:56
DW2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 274
I think we're going around in circles and it's turning into you just repeating your arguments whilst I remind you of my responses to them. Therefore, this will be my last reply to you.

yep, i accept that.... but .... it doesnt mean there were either,
In your previous posts you've confidently claimed that Jesus went unnoticed and that nobody at the time wrote about him. If you're now acknowledging that this confidence of yours is misplaced, as we simply don't know either way, then that's great - we are in agreement.

What this does mean is that you can no more legitimately claim that there were no contemporary sources for Jesus than I can go around claiming that there are. All we can say is that this silence you talk of is found throughout ancient history and proves little either way.

yep.... and?... the point is that theres no more 'evidence' from a reliable, non biased source, for his existence then there is for him not existing.
There is no such thing in history as an unbiased source - everybody has a motivation for writing something and everybody is tainted by their own prejudices. Historians take into account the Christian bias in early Christian writings, just as they take into account the Jewish bias in Josephus or the imperial bias in Tacitus, but they don't just throw the sources out.

So how does this work? Take the Christmas story for example. We would expect the gospels writers to say Jesus was born in Bethlehem because there was an expectation at the time that this is where the Messiah would be born. Therefore, a historian might question this part of the story. But if you’re making it all up, why not just say Jesus came from Bethlehem? Why invent the rest of it? It’s as if the gospel writers had the incontrovertible fact that Jesus came from Nazareth (as he was commonly referred to as 'Jesus of Nazareth' rather than 'Jesus of Bethlehem') and therefore had to explain away this problem. The historian, therefore, might take into account the sources bias and cast doubt on the Bethlehem birth but accept the bit about Jesus coming from Nazareth as being historical as the Nazareth part is not something you'd expect the church to makeup. This is just one example of how a historian could accept one part of the New Testament and not another.

In other words, historians don't have a pile of infallible, unbiased and completely reliable sources that they get their information from and another pile they just dismiss.

..... and do not say something is true until evidence supports it.
The evidence has been presented to you - this is the same standard of evidence that historians have for many other people or events that took place in the past.

whats written in the bible cannot be assumed to be 100% accurate, its totally unverifiable.
It's as verifiable as any other ancient text. Either you have a problem with the whole of ancient history or you're own biases are causing you to treat early church history differently to other events from the period.

its not 'evidence'... its opinion... see above.
So is all history - all historians can do is read the opinions of those who were around at the time and make a judgement.

not true? your mate erhman said the church has early texts, but non mention jesus. i dont know what he was referring to, ask him! hes the expert!
Firstly, Ehrman is not my mate - he is one of the leading experts in the field of early church history and I can no more ask him than I can phone up Richard Dawkins to chat about biology. Secondly, Ehrman fully accepts that Jesus existed despite his scepticism towards other parts of the Bible and nowhere has he said that the church has early texts that don't refer to Jesus - I think you must have imagined that. Seeing as you can't even spell his name correctly I can only conclude that you have got the wrong end of the stick here.

getting his message across is irrelevant ?..... seriously?...
There were lots of people alive in the first century that had messages they wanted to get across - we don't have lots of contemporary sources for any of them.

it would add considerable weight to the argument for him existing, id accept it as such.
Historians and archeologist could come up with a long list of texts and artefacts they'd love to find however rather than living in such a dreamworld they work with what they've got.
DW2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 12:25
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
we do 'get on'?..... really?.... after 1500 years of war, death, fighting between islam and christianity which is still going on now.... you claim you 'get on'?..

of course i accept i might be wrong about jesus the son of god existing, my hunch is though that im not, because i dont believe in magic.

you seem very sensetive to the subject of being deluded... i wonder why.


who are discredited?.... i cite the facts laid out in 'the silence that screams' , if anything there is untrue, please prove it!


im not hedging my bets, all along ive been quite open about the options regarding the existence or not of jesus. thats what my debate here has been about.

its the very point, if jesus wasnt the son of god, the whole religion collapses.
The silence that screams? I wouldn't call disciples willing to go to their deaths for Jesus, a silence.

The mythicists have largely been discredited by other historians.

Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man in various places in the NT.

Mat 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.

Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house

Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Luke 9:44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.

Luke 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

John 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.


Further, he said that only God, not he, knows when the hour cometh of the return of the kingdom.

I'm not clear how it ultimately matters if Jesus was God, or was sent by God to preach and heal in his name. Indeed, for Hindu and other religious, all beings existed in spirit before becoming incarnate, and returned to spirit. Another way of looking at it is we all exist in the mind of God.

Edit. Recall that Jesus told his followers they could do greater works than he did.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 13:35
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
The silence that screams? I wouldn't call disciples willing to go to their deaths for Jesus, a silence.

The mythicists have largely been discredited by other historians.

Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man in various places in the NT.

Mat 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.

Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house

Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Luke 9:44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.

Luke 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

John 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.


Further, he said that only God, not he, knows when the hour cometh of the return of the kingdom.

I'm not clear how it ultimately matters if Jesus was God, or was sent by God to preach and heal in his name. Indeed, for Hindu and other religious, all beings existed in spirit before becoming incarnate, and returned to spirit. Another way of looking at it is we all exist in the mind of God.

Edit. Recall that Jesus told his followers they could do greater works than he did.
you really ought to read the silence that screams before replying.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 14:07
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
I think we're going around in circles and it's turning into you just repeating your arguments whilst I remind you of my responses to them. Therefore, this will be my last reply to you.
i told you that a week ago..... im repeating my charges because you have not directly addressed them. its all side stepping and fudge.

In your previous posts you've confidently claimed that Jesus went unnoticed and that nobody at the time wrote about him. If you're now acknowledging that this confidence of yours is misplaced, as we simply don't know either way, then that's great - we are in agreement.
no im not... twisting to discredit the charge... the fact is that jesus DID apparently (just to make it grammatically correct) go unniticed as there are NO contemporary accounts of him, despite there being other such accounts.

What this does mean is that you can no more legitimately claim that there were no contemporary sources for Jesus than I can go around claiming that there are. All we can say is that this silence you talk of is found throughout ancient history and proves little either way.
nonsense..... there are no known contemporary accounts of him that survive, therefore there either was non, because he didnt actually exist, or the testimonies from thousands who witnessed him have been mysteriously lost.

There is no such thing in history as an unbiased source - everybody has a motivation for writing something and everybody is tainted by their own prejudices.
utter nonsense. how many historians do you know?... i know loads of amateur ones, and archeologists... they all examine the evidences they are presented with from an unbiased source. how else would they ever discover the truth?

Historians take into account the Christian bias in early Christian writings, just as they take into account the Jewish bias in Josephus or the imperial bias in Tacitus, but they don't just throw the sources out.
this is why we go around in circles....this point has been addressed several times already.

not 1 credible historian , scholar, scientist, builds a case on biased evidence.

So how does this work? Take the Christmas story for example. We would expect the gospels writers to say Jesus was born in Bethlehem because there was an expectation at the time that this is where the Messiah would be born. Therefore, a historian might question this part of the story. But if you’re making it all up, why not just say Jesus came from Bethlehem? Why invent the rest of it? It’s as if the gospel writers had the incontrovertible fact that Jesus came from Nazareth (as he was commonly referred to as 'Jesus of Nazareth' rather than 'Jesus of Bethlehem') and therefore had to explain away this problem. The historian, therefore, might take into account the sources bias and cast doubt on the Bethlehem birth but accept the bit about Jesus coming from Nazareth as being historical as the Nazareth part is not something you'd expect the church to makeup. This is just one example of how a historian could accept one part of the New Testament and not another.
agreed ..... but theres no hard evidence that jesus existed, let alone came from nazareth.

In other words, historians don't have a pile of infallible, unbiased and completely reliable sources that they get their information from and another pile they just dismiss.
true.... but if they think there was a guy called jesus, do they think he was a normal preacher or the miracle worker.... see, you have dodged this question time and time again! and it is crucial to the validity of your religion.

The evidence has been presented to you - this is the same standard of evidence that historians have for many other people or events that took place in the past.
no you havnt, youve offered opinion and excuses, not evidence, but unverifiable opinion.

and yet again you belittle jesus to that of a warrior, whos existence really doesnt matter. if DOES matter whether jesus existed or not.

It's as verifiable as any other ancient text. Either you have a problem with the whole of ancient history or you're own biases are causing you to treat early church history differently to other events from the period.
belittling your religion again. see my last reply.

im not biased..... im simply adding up unbiased known facts.

So is all history - all historians can do is read the opinions of those who were around at the time and make a judgement.
so which version of jesus do these historians who believe he existed do they believe existed? the embelished preacher man, or the magician son of god?...

keep dodging, keep ducking, keep ignoring... but THIS is the salient point... not so much whether jesus existed or not, but did the magical son of god exist. anything less negates the whole religion.


nowhere has he said that the church has early texts that don't refer to Jesus - I think you must have imagined that. Seeing as you can't even spell his name correctly I can only conclude that you have got the wrong end of the stick here.
that is simply not true....i posted the quote from him... he stated that the church has early 1st century accounts and non of them mention jesus.

There were lots of people alive in the first century that had messages they wanted to get across - we don't have lots of contemporary sources for any of them.
and thats exactly what youd expect from very ordinary people... but yet again you are belittling jesus, who was supposed to be the messiah, the saviour, the preacher and miracle worker witnessed by thousands. you think that after all that, its reasonable to suggest all accounts were lost?... like ive already said, if thats the case then jesus failed to get the most important message of all time across to man


or he never existed.

Historians and archeologist could come up with a long list of texts and artefacts they'd love to find however rather than living in such a dreamworld they work with what they've got.
..... and what theyve got is nothing. no unbiased accounts, no contemporary accounts, of this magician, this messiah, the bloke whos job it was to spread the message of salvation.

believers can bluster and spit, it very uncomfortable reading because you cannot face this fact at all.. clutching at straws, using biased accounts created years later, when all the time the fact is that he might never have existed.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 14:52
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
you really ought to read the silence that screams before replying.
Why would I when most historians reject what you're saying.

Ehrman, an agnostic gives the evidence for Jesus' existence and why the myth idea is all wet.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 15:01
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,409
its the very point, if jesus wasnt the son of god, the whole religion collapses.
Depends how you see the religion.

Jesus of the gospels referred to himself in as 'son of man', not 'son of god'. However, he used the word 'Abba' to describe god (the Aramaic word for 'father'). It seems the gentile converts might have taken this literally and merged it with their own incarnation myths. In fact referring to god as 'father' was a pretty standard Pharisaic convention of the time and (despite the claims of antagonism), most of Jesus's teaching were Pharisaic. He throws in a bit of end of world stuff that the Essenes were speaking about then but that's because they would have been relatively 'normal' stuff to hear.

The original followers of Jesus were a select group of Jews who wouldn't have believed all that stuff about him being god. They certainly would have held him up as a messiah figure but there is nothing supernatural about a Jewish messiah. Paul is the one who created a god-man type theory and given his reach far extended that of Peter (they had a huge fall-out at Antioch and Paul was even threatened by the Jerusalem sect for teaching stuff that was heretical); it was Paul's version that won out in the end. And Christianity ended up being the Hellenized, western tradition espoused by Paul. And contrary to what people think of Paul, he was not Jewish in the same way the original apostles were. He was from a tentmaking family in Tarsus (modern day Turkey), a Roman citizen and completely Hellenized.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 18:14
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
But what about that poor Fig tree, Why is that bit in there if not true ?


(...).
I already said I suspect Christ was probably based on a real person.

But it is an interesting contradiction; either it it not true and supports the idea that bits of the gospels are made up. Or it is true and we have the Son of God destroying out of season fruit trees because he was in a bit of a huff.

The BBC should do a Gardeners Question Time/Thought for the Day combined special to help us find the answer.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 18:26
CBFreak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 22,063
Does that mean this guy is jesus?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ps75bf523c.jpg
They look uncanny !
CBFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 18:34
ags_rule
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,401
no im not... twisting to discredit the charge... the fact is that jesus DID apparently (just to make it grammatically correct) go unniticed as there are NO contemporary accounts of him, despite there being other such accounts.
You accuse us of "side-stepping" and "fudging" the issue yet continue to make outlandish claims with no basis.

Please list contemporary accounts that we have found from the period AD 1 to AD 33 - they can be to do with any event or person you want.

nonsense..... there are no known contemporary accounts of him that survive, therefore there either was non, because he didnt actually exist, or the testimonies from thousands who witnessed him have been mysteriously lost.
Most people didn't read. Most people didn't write. Testimonies were almost certainly passed down in oral form, and this is backed up by a knowledge of Jewish custom as well as references in Luke to "many accounts" of Jesus having come before.

It was also explained to you before that what Jesus was doing was, while remarkable, not Messianic. Many prophets had come before him and the concept of miracles was well established in Jewish teaching. There was no reason for people to write about Jesus while he was alive. It was the belief in his Resurrection that made him worth writing about - that made him worth dying for. Without that, he was at best a Prophet and at worst, a mad man.

But we're retreading old ground. You state the Bible is a biased source yet if there were contemporary, authentic written accounts of Jesus discovered, guess where they'd end up?! It's a circular argument. The New Testament is largely a compilation of information and ideologies about Jesus and the early Christian Church.

so which version of jesus do these historians who believe he existed do they believe existed? the embelished preacher man, or the magician son of god?...

keep dodging, keep ducking, keep ignoring... but THIS is the salient point... not so much whether jesus existed or not, but did the magical son of god exist. anything less negates the whole religion.
The historians who agreed on the historical Jesus come from all backgrounds, all faiths and none. The evidence is incredibly strong.

On your last point, however, we are certainly agreed. CS Lewis said as much - Jesus was either a mad man, a liar or who he said he was.

However, that is not what you have been debating us on, despite your best attempts to shift the goalposts. This is about whether Jesus existed as a historical character.

that is simply not true....i posted the quote from him... he stated that the church has early 1st century accounts and non of them mention jesus.
This is utter nonsense. Not only have you misquoted but you're tying yourself in knots as before you have spoken about "the silence that screams" and 30 years of nothingness, and now you're admitting that there WAS an early church and that we have evidence for it! Make up your mind!
ags_rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 20:00
dosanjh1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,795

im not hedging my bets, all along ive been quite open about the options regarding the existence or not of jesus. thats what my debate here has been about.
You have been open, I'm just asking if you think jesus was a real historical figure or not.
dosanjh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 20:15
Hayley_baby
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,144


what was a blonde hair blue eyed white guy doing in the middle east anyway? Also he looks extremely attractive *phwooor* he must have had a lot of women (and men) chasing after him no wonder why he started a cult Maybe he used his attractiveness for some kinda orgy?
Hayley_baby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 20:17
lordOfTime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 15,061
we do 'get on'?..... really?.... after 1500 years of war, death, fighting between islam and christianity which is still going on now.... you claim you 'get on'?..

of course i accept i might be wrong about jesus the son of god existing, my hunch is though that im not, because i dont believe in magic.

you seem very sensetive to the subject of being deluded... i wonder why.
Because no one likes being referred to as deluded.

I'm not sure the word is magic. Perhaps what you mean to say is you don't believe in supernatural power.

Islam is a religion of peace. Christianity and Islam have no interest in warring with each other with the exception of a minority few hoping to spread a warped evil ideology.
lordOfTime is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 21:13
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
Because no one likes being referred to as deluded.

I'm not sure the word is magic. Perhaps what you mean to say is you don't believe in supernatural power.

Islam is a religion of peace. Christianity and Islam have no interest in warring with each other with the exception of a minority few hoping to spread a warped evil ideology.
It is true that Islamic attacks on Christianity (albeit vile and murderous) are a side show compared with sectarian Muslim carnage.

Religion of Peace? The current evidence would indicate the opposite.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 21:27
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
I am convinced that Jesus only has one message for non-believers.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 23:20
Nodger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: A bunker
Posts: 5,963
Nodger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 23:22
lordOfTime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 15,061
It is true that Islamic attacks on Christianity (albeit vile and murderous) are a side show compared with sectarian Muslim carnage.

Religion of Peace? The current evidence would indicate the opposite.
It is a religion of peace but some people are not people of peace. I think that's the clearest way I can put it.
lordOfTime is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 01:53
Stormwave UK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,912
It is a religion of peace but some people are not people of peace. I think that's the clearest way I can put it.
There are something like 200 passages on killing non believers. Muhammad was a war lord who would slaughter anyone who wouldn't bow to him.

Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.
Stormwave UK is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 02:24
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,216
There are something like 200 passages on killing non believers. Muhammad was a war lord who would slaughter anyone who wouldn't bow to him.

Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.
And has what to do with what Jesus looked like?
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 03:06
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,098
We know he DIDN'T look like graham chapman.
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 03:17
Stormwave UK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,912
And has what to do with what Jesus looked like?
I was replying to the comment in context. You of all people should know that our posts don't have to reflect the topic of the thread.
Stormwave UK is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31.