vaxx:
Then i interpret you well, YOU accept Jesus evidence as a personality is undeniable but the the wonderful biblical performing Jesus is a myth..

Good, tintingz , so what evidence will you likely suggest that will validate the the truer nature of wonder performing Jesus according to the bible? or what will make you accept that the wonders perform by Jesus according to the bible is also undeniable?

The historians have made it known to us there is no physical and archaeological evidence of Jesus existence, in historical reports you should know this is part of what makes informations valid, this is just like in journalism (the 5 W's and How).

Who, what, when, where, why, how are what makes a report valid and worthy, in Jesus case even in the Bible it lack many of this, Jesus birth-day is not even in known.

If archaeological evidence cannot be provided on where(the site) Jesus performed all his magical wonders in front of thousands then how do you expect me to believe what the Bible claims? It's like telling me Harcules perform magical wonders without having any archaeological evidence for it, that's a myth.

And secondly, there were many people who have claim to be Messiahs or prophet and have been killed or died, and "christus" might just be radonmly found in a Roman letter, so which "christus" was the letter actually referring to?

There were Messiahs claimants, this is the reason Jesus existence is very shaky but we can't deny a person of Jesus probably existed tho.

vaxx:
please, i am not an atheist, be careful of your labeling, i once told you i am a traditionalist. and thanks for you opinion. it is welcome.

I didn't say you're the one who's an atheist. Check the other one.
All the same, there's nothing like being a traditionalist; there's no religion by that name.

[quote author=tintingz post=65904633]

The historians have made it known to us there is no physical and archaeological evidence of Jesus existence, in historical reports you should know this is part of what makes informations valid, this is just like in journalism (the 5 W's and How).

If you followed my conversation with wirinet, you will realized i made mention of a romann historians writing giving
the factual historical evidence for Jesus when narrating the biography of emperor Claudius, in which the name christo apper, and this name clearly fit the discription of biblical jesus according to the book of act. besides jesus Nazareth history is both long-established and widespread, as you yourself support the wikipedia report that historians of antiquity all agree that personhood of jesus christ exist, Within a few decades of jesus supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of (Christian writings) which i know you will not take as evidence. but what of the roman and the Jewish historians,can all of them be lying? if you admit not to strong , Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived or that of Alexander the great, that i am presently dealing with winret. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur or the evidence of alexander account that has got missing.

Who, what, when, where, why, how are what makes a report valid, in Jesus case even in the Bible it lack many of this, Jesus birth-day is not even in known.

The roman and Jewish historian cannot be lying at the same time, there must be an element of truth in their statement. bible inability to state jesus birthday does not not mean the evidence it put forward on the personality of Jesus cannot be trusted, at least we can rely on some other means like where he was born , the season of that period etc.

If archaeological evidence cannot be provided on where(the site) Jesus performed all his magical wonders in front of thousands then how do you expect me to believe what the Bible claims?

interesting, there are actual archaeological evidence that buttress biblical report of Jesus biography, the archaeological report of the pilate council was unearthed and also the chief priest Caiaphas tomb was also discover, all this were well documented in the bible, and to also add to it which is not directly from the bible, ''there have been claims that Jesus was a great-grandson of Cleopatra, complete with ancient coins allegedly showing Jesus wearing his crown of thorns. In some circles, there is still interest in the Shroud of Turin, supposedly Jesus’s burial shroud. Pope Benedict XVI stated that it was something that “no human artistry was capable of producing” and an “icon of Holy Saturday”(from Luke johnson a scholar at Emory university and http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/simon-gathercole from university of cambridge.

however, It is hard to find historians who regard this material as serious archaeological data, however. The documents produced by Christian, Jewish and Roman writers form the most significant evidence available which has more weight than that of king Arthur or Alexander the great,these abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus once lived and died. To me the more interesting question is and which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived or perform the wonders associated to him according to the bible

And secondly, there are many people who have claim to be Messiahs or prophet and have been killed or died, and "christus" might just radonmly found in a Roman letter, so which "christus" was the letter actually referring to?

There are Messiahs claimants, this is the reason Jesus existence is very shaky but we can't deny a person of Jesus probably existed tho.

i just refer you to the book of act in the bible, the letter actually perfect the description of the christus which actually perfect that of biblical Jesus. so can we work on the second question now....the wonders associate with Jesus cannot be determined by history or actual objective fact, so what evidence will you likely agreed upon that will substantiate the biblical wonder perform by Jesus?

Daviddson:
I didn't say you're the one who's an atheist. Check the other one.
All the same, there's nothing like being a traditionalist; there's no religion by that name.

if that will suit you, i am a pagan

vaxx I have only one question to ask you
DO YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS A DIVINELY INSPIRED BOOK ?

darkchild64:
vaxx I have only one question to ask you

DO YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS A DIVINELY INSPIRED BOOK ?

All book are divinely inspired, but this books were writing personally by men with this major ability, common sense, instinct, personal gut ,emotions and self center interest.... Since all this element are categorically gotten from GOD and not by human,THEN we say it is inspired. hamlet written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired.

vaxx:
All book are divinely inspired, but this books were writing personally by men with this major ability, common sense, instinct, personal gut ,emotions and self center interest.... Since all this element are categorically gotten from GOD and not by human,THEN we say it is inspired. hamlet written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired.

If "ALL" books(I would assume you mean holy books) were divinely inspired then that means that Yahweh, Allah,Krishna,Zeus e.t.c simultaneously exist.
And if that is the case Christians would go to the Christian heaven and simultaneously be in the Muslim hell,Muslims would go to the Muslim heaven and simultaneously be in the Christian hell

Bro with all due respect your statement that "ALL" books are divinely inspired does not make sense

vaxx:
All book are divinely inspired, but this books were writing personally by men with this major ability, common sense, instinct, personal gut ,emotions and self center interest.... Since all this element are categorically gotten from GOD and not by human,THEN we say it is inspired. hamlet written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired.

besides when you say "God" which one are you referring to is it Yahweh, Allah,Zeus,Brahmah,Olodumare or Amadioha ?

vaxx:
All book are divinely inspired, but this books were writing personally by men with this major ability, common sense, instinct, personal gut ,emotions and self center interest.... Since all this element are categorically gotten from GOD and not by human,THEN we say it is inspired. hamlet written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired.

What? can you elucidate?

darkchild64:


besides when you say "God" which one are you referring to is it Yahweh, Allah,Zeus,Brahmah,Olodumare or Amadioha ?

lol. olodumare... i do not want us to to derail the op, you can ask me this question in a topic similar to it next time, i will surely give you a convincing example.

darkchild64:


If "ALL" books(I would assume you mean holy books) were divinely inspired then that means that Yahweh, Allah,Krishna,Zeus e.t.c simultaneously exist.
And if that is the case Christians would go to the Christian heaven and simultaneously be in the Muslim hell,Muslims would go to the Muslim heaven and simultaneously be in the Christian hell

Bro with all due respect your statement that "ALL" books are divinely inspired does not make sense

then i found it difficult debating this with you, even when i said hamlet, written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired. you still do not get the logic , i am passing.

vaxx:
then i found it difficult debating this with you, even when i said hamlet, written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired. you still do not get the logic , i am passing.

The problem here, I think, is that you set the bar for something being "Divinely inspired" so low that it became meaningless or at least that's how I see it as your explanation of divinely inspired means almost anything, dare I say everything is divinely inspired

CuteMadridista:


The problem here, I think, is that you set the bar for something being "Divinely inspired" so low that it became meaningless or at least that's how I see it as your explanation of divinely inspired means almost anything, dare I say everything is divinely inspired

cutemadirdista, not to derail the topic, create something like this question and give me a mention...

vaxx:
then i found it difficult debating this with you, even when i said hamlet, written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired. you still do not get the logic , i am passing.

you find it difficult debating with me ?
lol

dude you said ALL books as in All books are divinely inspired even Sam Harris' books ?

darkchild64:


you find it difficult debating with me ?
lol

dude you said ALL books as in All books are divinely inspired even Sam Harris' books ?

should we begin then?, where does sam harris got is inspiration from?

vaxx there is nothing like derailing the topic all I wanted to know is whether you believe that Yahweh inspired the bible,your answers are incoherent first you said all books are divinely inspired and that includes the bible,then I asked who you were referring to when you said "God" and you said Olodumare

So in essence you are saying that "God" which is Olodumare inspired Hebrew men to write the bible stating that Yahweh is the only true God and that anyone that doesn't accept Jesus would rot in hell,and at the same time inspired Mohammed to write the Koran saying that Allah is the only true God and anyone that doesn't accept him would perish
You are indeed confused

vaxx:
should we begin then?, where does sam harris got is inspiration from?

I can not speak on his behalf but I guess it is from things happening around him

darkchild64:
vaxx there is nothing like derailing the topic all I wanted to know is whether you believe that Yahweh inspired the bible,your answers are incoherent first you said all books are divinely inspired and that includes the bible,then I asked who you were referring to when you said "God" and you said Olodumare

So in essence you are saying that "God" which is Olodumare inspired Hebrew men to write the bible stating that Yahweh is the only true God and that anyone that doesn't accept Jesus would rot in hell,and at the same time inspired Mohammed to write the Koran saying that Allah is the only true God and anyone that doesn't accept him would perish
You are indeed confused

spoon feeding you will be the last thing i will do

vaxx:
spoon feeding will be the last thing i will do

that is your business

darkchild64:


I can not speak on his behalf but I guess it is from things happening around him

this is not a logical option to start a debate... so i am off your hook...

wirinet:


There is a huge difference between the historicity of Alexander and that of Jesus. Numerous people including contemporary authors and generals wrote extensively about Alexander the great, the problem is that they were all lost. Remember the great library in alexandra was complete destroyed.
How else did you think Arrian of Nicomedia was able to write consise biography 500 years later? He had the original sources of course. He could not have dreamed up the biography of Alexander the great. One of the most importance source as cited by Arrian of Nicomedia was the writings of Ptolemy I Soter, who was a general that fought beside Alexander and went on to rule Egypt. Alexander's influence was felt all over the ancient world, from Macedonia to Persian all the way to India.

The same cannot be said of Jesus. No one has claimed contemporary literary works of Jesus was lost. What we have are general beliefs by followers as penned down by authors decades later.

Alexander the great had physical evidence. There are many coins that date to his period with his head on it. There are also numerous busts and statues of Alexander, some that survived till today.
In the case of Jesus nothing, all the roman Catholic could come up with was a shroud that was said to have been used to cover the crucified Jesus and the shroud retaining the physical features of Jesus. The shroud had been proven to be a 12th or 13th century fraud.

Only extremely famous get remembered by history that doesn't mean that those who weren't mentioned didn't exist

vaxx:
this is not a logical option to start a debate... so i am off your hook...

so you expect me to say for sure where Sam Harris gets his inspiration, am I his spokesman ?

Jesus mythcism is commom amongst atheists because many got a strong bias against Christianity, and because most people who are atheists blindly feed into atheistic propaganda. When they become atheists they immediately questioned any claim if the claim is made by a theist (specifically a Christian) as false, likely false or suspect. However if it comes out the mouths of other atheists, they blindly accept it as true or likely true, there's no need to bother with researching the claim since it came out the mouth of a fellow unbeliever. That mentality is the reason lots of atheists are mythicists, that's the reason many of them believe Jesus was based on a pagan god. I've even seen an atheist admit memes from atheists convinced him theism is false . The truth of the matter is many atheists are still that same person they were as a theist when blindly believed anything their parents, pastor or Imans told them and immediately rejected anything that disagree with that.
The only difference is the new pastor or Iman they blindly believe are their fellow atheists, and their new devils, if we put it like that are the theists.

darkchild64:
vaxx there is nothing like derailing the topic all I wanted to know is whether you believe that Yahweh inspired the bible,your answers are incoherent first you said all books are divinely inspired and that includes the bible,then I asked who you were referring to when you said "God" and you said Olodumare

So in essence you are saying that "God" which is Olodumare inspired Hebrew men to write the bible stating that Yahweh is the only true God and that anyone that doesn't accept Jesus would rot in hell,and at the same time inspired Mohammed to write the Koran saying that Allah is the only true God and anyone that doesn't accept him would perish
You are indeed confused

Dangerously confused.

rekinomtla:
Jesus mythcism is commom amongst atheists because many got a strong bias against Christianity, and because most people who are atheists blindly feed into atheistic propaganda. When they become atheists they immediately questioned any claim if the claim is made by a theist (specifically a Christian) as false, likely false or suspect. However if it comes out the mouths of other atheists, they blindly accept it as true or likely true, there's no need to bother with researching the claim since it came out the mouth of a fellow unbeliever. That mentality is the reason lots of atheists are mythicists, that's the reason many of them believe Jesus was based on a pagan god. I've even seen an atheist admit memes from atheists convinced him theism is false . The truth of the matter is many atheists are still that same person they were as a theist when blindly believed anything their parents, pastor or Imans told them and immediately rejected anything that disagree with that.
The only difference is the new pastor or Iman they blindly believe are their fellow atheists, and their new devils, if we put it like that are the theists.

Nonsense!

vaxx:
If you followed my conversation with wirinet, you will realized i made mention of a romann historians writing giving
the factual historical evidence for Jesus when narrating the biography of emperor Claudius, in which the name christo apper, and this name clearly fit the discription of biblical jesus according to the book of act. besides jesus Nazareth history is both long-established and widespread, as you yourself support the wikipedia report that historians of antiquity all agree that personhood of jesus christ exist, Within a few decades of jesus supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of (Christian writings) which i know you will not take as evidence. but what of the roman and the Jewish historians,can all of them be lying? if you admit not to strong , Compare that with,

The two widley accepted historical fact of the Jesus are that of John the Baptist and crucifixion.

The Roman letter only mention "Christus" who was sentenced to death and Josephus who talked about John the Baptist. Every other sources are not reliable, historians agree little in the new testament account are reliable.

for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived or that of Alexander the great, that i am presently dealing with winret. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur or the evidence of alexander account that has got missing.

Arthur is more of legendary figure, Arthur stories are more of folklores according to historians, Alexander stories is like that of Jesus also, the person of Alexander existed but there are myths attached to him(like the Alexander romance).

The roman and Jewish historian cannot be lying at the same time, there must be an element of truth in their statement. bible inability to state jesus birthday does not not mean the evidence it put forward on the personality of Jesus cannot be trusted, at least we can rely on some other means like where he was born , the season of that period etc.

The Jews sees Jesus as false Messiah, he's just like every other false Messiahs they have encountered just that he's more damaging and popular due to Roman involvement in creation of Christianity!

I'm not arguing about the existence of personhood of Jesus but the biblical magician Jesus, all what he claim he magically performed are false as no independent evidence talk about it.

interesting, there are actual archaeological evidence that buttress biblical report of Jesus biography, the archaeological report of the pilate council was unearthed and also the chief priest Caiaphas tomb was also discover, all this were well documented in the bible, and to also add to it which is not directly from the bible, ''there have been claims that Jesus was a great-grandson of Cleopatra, complete with ancient coins allegedly showing Jesus wearing his crown of thorns. In some circles, there is still interest in the Shroud of Turin, supposedly Jesus’s burial shroud. Pope Benedict XVI stated that it was something that “no human artistry was capable of producing” and an “icon of Holy Saturday”(from Luke johnson a scholar at Emory university and http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/simon-gathercole from university of cambridge.

however, It is hard to find historians who regard this material as serious archaeological data, however. The documents produced by Christian, Jewish and Roman writers form the most significant evidence available which has more weight than that of king Arthur or Alexander the great,these abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus once lived and died. To me the more interesting question is and which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived or perform the wonders associated to him according to the bible

You're quoting from a Christian blog issokay.

Anyways, Arthur is more of a legendary firgure, Alexander and Jesus falls to the same category but I will tell you Alexander has more weight than Jesus existence.

For the fact that the existenceof these figures are debated, shows they shouldn't be rely on.

i just refer you to the book of act in the bible, the letter actually perfect the description of the christus which actually perfect that of biblical Jesus. so can we work on the second question now....the wonders associate with Jesus cannot be determined by history or actual objective fact, so what evidence will you likely agreed upon that will substantiate the biblical wonder perform by Jesus?

Book of act is not a reliable source, scholars are still finding the actual people who wrote these accounts.

As for your second part, the Jewish literatures reject Jesus divinity, there are no archaeological fact to show Jesus performed some wonders, no element is found yet.

Dalaman, Divinlly inspired, simply means a supernatural force cause a person to experience a creative desire right, so let look at the element i made mention which perfectly include instinct, emotions, gut feeling , common sense and experience .and all these are perfectly included in all religious or many books . so my i agurement here is the major element i made mention were divine and not by human... or can you prove where this elements were gotten from? we can start with it......i call you because i still can go along with you

CuteMadridista:
Nonsense!

It's the truth

vaxx:
Dalaman, Divinlly inspired, simply means a supernatural force cause a person to experience a creative desire right, so let look at the element i made mention which perfectly include instinct, emotions, gut feeling , common sense and experience .and all these are perfectly included in all religious or many books . so my i agurement here is the major element i made mention were divine and not by human... or can you prove where this elements were gotten from? we can start with it......i call you because i still can go along with you

if that is how you define "divine inspiration" then there is nothing special about it everyone gets divinely inspired, Rastafarians get divinely inspired when they smoke weed,terrorists get divine inspiration to carry out suicide attacks,Adolf Hitler's antisemitism was divinely inspired

anyone can claim that what he does is divinely inspired no big deal about it

and besides if all religious books were divinely inspired then that means that divine inspiration can be untrue considering the fact that all religious books can not be true,and that means that supernatural inspiration is nothing special

[quote author=tintingz post=65911961] The two widley accepted historical fact of the Jesus are that of John the Baptist and crucifixion.

The Roman letter only mention "Christus" who was sentenced to death and Josephus who talked about John the Baptist. Every other sources are not reliable, historians agree little in the new testament account are reliable.

what is your argument here here Mr titinngz, there is consensus agreement that the biography perfectly fit the description record inn the Gospel of act

Arthur is more of legendary figure, Arthur stories are more of folklores according to historians, Alexander stories is like that of Jesus also, the person of Alexander existed but there are myths attached to him(like the Alexander romance).

even after so many hours , this the flimsy excuse , you can come with, Arthur is not just legend , he is also an historical figure, i do not dispute about myth, my dispute is about the personhood of this historical figure we can discuss about the myth attached to them later . it seems you like the back and forth argument. stay focused

The Jews sees Jesus as false Messiah, he's just like every other false Messiahs they have encountered just that he's more damaging and popular due to Roman involvement in creation of Christianity!

I'm not arguing about the existence of personhood of Jesus but the biblical magician Jesus, all what he claim he magically performed are false as no independent evidence talk about it.

then why are you still instinting that the personhod of jesus do not carry much weight than that of king Arthur or Alexandra the great which i have provide multiple evidence

You're quoting from a Christian blog issokay.

this is a false accusation, all my quote were back up by scholarly report and not from any christian blog, in fact my experience on nairaland made me realized atheist do not trust Christian blog and therefore i have stay away from it. so tell me you are accusing me wrongly. or better show your atheist friend the christian blogs i quoted it.if not i will tell you to your face you cannot be trusted

Anyways, Arthur is more of a legendary firgure, Alexander and Jesus falls to the same category but I will tell you Alexander has more weight than Jesus existence.

this is a flimsy excuse without any iota of evidence

For the fact that the existenceof these figures are debated, shows they shouldn't be rely on.

you are repeating the usual mistakes , just accept you are wrong, i have throw more than convincing element to buttress my point, it is left for you to do as such

Book of act is not a reliable source, scholars are still finding the actual people who wrote these accounts

it does not need to be reliable, if the message found in them appears the same with scholarly report, then we can say it is trustworthy.

As for your second part, the Jewish literatures reject Jesus divinity, there are no archaeological fact to show Jesus performed some wonders, no element is found yet.

you did a very poor reply , your response earlier were better than this . many jewish historian and roman historian in antiquity agree that that the personhood of Jesus exist

Nah....
He was written into existence much like Harry Potter, by the Romans, basically to make mockery of the God of the old testament. The God of the jews, hence the reason why they super glued it to the back of the Jewish scriptures...

Reason : to fulfil Daniel 7:25.

sonmvayina:
Nah....
He was written into existence much like Harry Potter, by the Romans, basically to make mockery of the God of the old testament. The God of the jews, hence the reason why they super glued it to the back of the Jewish scriptures...

Reason : to fulfil Daniel 7:25.

you are the most funniest person so far, you wanted to disagree with the personhood of jesus and you are still using biblical report.... how funny is that?