Informational Deep Into Christianity

Totenkopf

New Member
Good morning dear friend,

We are lucky the follower of the teacup take don't take their beliefs seriously, but beware of the Spaghetti Monster followers...

Regarding eye witness... What eye witness, its a text saying that the information comes from eye witness, did he bother name them? identifying them? describing their jobs and whereabouts during the events? you know, check them out?
Are you using the book to prove the book? Somewhere in it, it says at the crucifixion, the dead of Jerusalem walked in the city (Mt. 27: 52-53). Where are the eye witnesses for that one? Dead people walking around and no one in Jerusalem bothered writing about it? The Roman garrison did suddenly get worried about zombies attack and reported back to Rome? Where was George Romero to direct a movie about it?

None of the authors were the apostles! Only a few Pauline Letters can be really authenticated that they were written by Paul himself. Heck, Peter's letters were written in 110, 50 years after Peter's death!

You only have to look at all the fractions in the early christian era, the "heretics" to see how much people didn't agree with the latest version of the bible decided at each new council.

Yes the latest version of the bible, cause the text is a big mess of additions and rewritings, consider this: At the early times of Christianity, there was a conflict between the apostles Peter and John, on who is the leader. Nothing too critical as they weren't at that time leaders of anything big, but it did lead to a bigger issue after their death between the followers of each side.
After a few schisms and councils for heresies, a new part of the gospel of John showed up, at the end of it. The scene when Jesus asks Peter if he loves him 3 times and then gives him the title as official leader of the church. Linguistically, that part has nothing to do with the rest of John gospel, its an obvious add-on. Just to cover up for the taking of power by the Peter clan over the John clan.

Its a big mess when you start studying the bible :p

Have a nice day
Greetings to you my friend,

The same reply about the giant tea cup applies to the Spaghetti Monster....
St Peter's letters are dated between 62 and 65 ad before his martyrdom...I don't know where you got 110 AD.

In any case, there are many tangents in your reply and I feel it will be a waste of time to run after each one since we stand on different planes.
I will never have enough faith to be an atheist and the inverse might be true for you.....

So thank you for this respectful dialog mate, cheers!
 

Rock

Legendary Member
Greetings to you my friend,

The same reply about the giant tea cup applies to the Spaghetti Monster....
St Peter's letters are dated between 62 and 65 ad before his martyrdom...I don't know where you got 110 AD.

In any case, there are many tangents in your reply and I feel it will be a waste of time to run after each one since we stand on different planes.
I will never have enough faith to be an atheist and the inverse might be true for you.....

So thank you for this respectful dialog mate, cheers!
Hi

Peter Second Letter date is 110AD, Wikipedia :)

Sure,
It was a pleasure
Cheers
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
This post in support of my brother and ex-rafi2 @Dark Angel
even though he hates me, but my heart is as big as his boss heart :D

hate is a big word. it is rather about veracity and truth, the same notion and constructs of truth are shared in all concepts; faith, science, politics, etc... thus when choosing to condemn Christ and to set barabas free upon the world, one's adherence to truth becomes compromised; condemning someone without sin, and setting free those who have committed all kinds of sins. thus the divide is not about politics, it is rather between those who adhere to truth and veracity and those who do not, between those who can sort their priorities out well, and those who do not.
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
before going into the more intricate details of the historical value and accuracy of the gospels, one has to clear out the subject of the historicity of Christ himself, as this is the simpler and the more fundamental of both matters. this is particularly true for everyone who embraces and promotes what is known as the "Christ myth theory", which has no scholarly merit from an academic perspective and fails to meet the carefully chosen standards of the corresponding disciplines.

one does not need to stem from a scientific background to comprehend what that means, yet this forms an additional motivation for those who do as they should be rather more familiar with the role of academics and scholars as the established references and highest authority in their corresponding disciplines. further more, to challenge a nearly unanimous consensus in a given field without possessing any related experience or qualifications, simply goes to show subjectivity, disregard for truth, and/or a loaded agenda.

it follows that adhering to the scientific approach requires acknowledging the established authorities on the subject, without attempting to reinvent the discipline in order to fit a preconceived notion, starting from the very simple and modest fact that none of the people discussing the issue on the forum are leading scholars in the field; and this is where the quest for the truth of the subject starts from.

the leading scholars would have no qualm putting the historicity of Christ in doubt if they saw that to be the case. and to that point, the majority of scholars - though there isn't a unanimous consensus on this point - cannot establish the historicity of prophet muhammad, and readers should check that as a little exercise to understand the differences between the two cases; and to know more about what constitutes a valid and solid ground for establishing historicity and what does not. that is if they objectively seek the truth of the matter to the best avail.

the references to the books and studies available in the corresponding wikipedia articles offer a valid starting ground for anyone who wishes to research the subject, and again the references are what is of value here, not the wikipedia articles themselves.

historicity of Jesus
historicity of muhammad
Christ myth theory (funny bit, someone from eastwood international school Beirut tried to edit info on this page recently)
particularly important is the following statement and its corresponding references:

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357]
Common criticisms against the Christ myth theory include: general lack of expertise or relationship to academic institutions and current scholarship; reliance on arguments from silence, dismissal of what sources actually state, and superficial comparisons with mythologies.[6]

so basically, from an academic perspective, the Christ myth theory is referred to as a fringe theory, similar in many ways to flat earth theory or any other fringe concept that develops using pseudo-scientific notions at best.

it thus follows that only when objectivity and impartiality on the historicity of Christ is established can a person move to examining the more intricate subject of the authenticity of the gospels, and whether or not they constitute a valid foundation for our faith today. in other words, one cannot participate in a marathon before one learns to stand and walk.

and scientifically speaking, it goes without saying that one cannot converge on the gospels as authentic all while maintaining Christ is not historically real.
Ya zalame ste7e 3ala shay5tak, you've been pasting the thing over and over again for the last 3 days. Provide a direct source for the crucifixion that proves your claims.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
i think part of the problems we are facing here and elsewhere are closely related to the declining critical thinking abilities of the individual, a trend that could prove devastating for humanity if not addressed in due time.




 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
i think part of the problems we are facing here and elsewhere are closely related to the declining critical thinking abilities of the individual, a trend that could prove devastating for humanity if not addressed in due time.




Instead of wasting your time by Googling these silly posts and paste them here, you could have written a credible counter-argument and provided a direct source for your claims.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
Instead of wasting your time by Googling these silly posts and paste them here, you could have written a credible counter-argument and provided a direct source for your claims.
if the verdict of scholars and experts does not constitute a "credible" argument to you then nothing much can be done here.

feel free to move on believing that you won the argument.
 

Rock

Legendary Member
Ya zalame ste7e 3ala shay5tak, you've been pasting the thing over and over again for the last 3 days. Provide a direct source for the crucifixion that proves your claims.
The crucifixion as a crime punishment could have been used on a religious agitator that would have been Jesus.
Again I am not saying that a charismatic character didn't live in that period and started a bigger movement that lead to Christianity, I just say that the exaggerated story build upon his conviction, and of course his resurrection, are not historical facts. I don't believe them at all. Also his birth and miracles...
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
The crucifixion as a crime punishment could have been used on a religious agitator that would have been Jesus.
Again I am not saying that a charismatic character didn't live in that period and started a bigger movement that lead to Christianity, I just say that the exaggerated story build upon his conviction, and of course his resurrection, are not historical facts. I don't believe them at all. Also his birth and miracles...
to that point, the gospel states very clearly that many of the people who witnessed Christ did not believe in Him either. at the end of the day, and in accordance with the gospel, it was the people who pushed for his crucifixion. some thought He was a fraud, some thought He was acting for satan, others thought they were better off without Him, the clergy and politicians had plenty of other motivations. why should reading the gospel lead to an outcome different from that described above? time has changed but people's predisposition to embrace or reject Christ did not.

the thing is that people make up their minds long before examining the evidence. what follows is simply reduced to searching for the argument and the evidence to support a position that has already been embraced. it comes back to choice oddly enough in this particular matter, people make up their minds first and search about the evidence to support their choice later. what motivates this choice is a completely different story, intricate beyond the scope of forums.
 
Last edited:

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
The crucifixion as a crime punishment could have been used on a religious agitator that would have been Jesus.
Again I am not saying that a charismatic character didn't live in that period and started a bigger movement that lead to Christianity, I just say that the exaggerated story build upon his conviction, and of course his resurrection, are not historical facts. I don't believe them at all. Also his birth and miracles...
I never denied the crucifixion or the bigger question, the resurrection. I said it's a matter of of faith. The discussion started when DA called it "a historical fact" and I merely replied that we do not have sufficient data to call it that. That's all I said, and since then I got is diversions and insults and he yet to provide an answer.
 

The_FPMer

Well-Known Member
if the verdict of scholars and experts does not constitute a "credible" argument to you then nothing much can be done here.
Provide the direct sources that these scholars and experts are using and stop quoting superlatives.
feel free to move on believing that you won the argument.
See this is your problem right here. I said numerous times that I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. Nothing strengthens one's faith than the truth. Bas your problem is the same problem as 90% of Lebanese. Toxic petty personality. Belna bel nekat wel memes w to7tim ba3dna while the entire world is thousands of years ahead of us technologically. You're not interested in a debate, you're interested in insulting others to prove your cleverness to yourself.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
I never denied the crucifixion or the bigger question, the resurrection. I said it's a matter of of faith. The discussion started when DA called it "a historical fact" and I merely replied that we do not have sufficient data to call it that. That's all I said, and since then I got is diversions and insults and he yet to provide an answer.
i'll take the blame for this one, i just noticed this, i meant to say the conviction and the crucifixion are historical facts, not the conviction and the resurrection. and these are enough to establish the historicity of Christ, which was the point being argued. the resurrection itself is a matter of faith.

1617965227849.png
 

Rock

Legendary Member
i'll take the blame for this one, i just noticed this, i meant to say the conviction and the crucifixion are historical facts, not the conviction and the resurrection. and these are enough to establish the historicity of Christ, which was the point being argued.

View attachment 23238
Thank you for the clarifications.

Let me try this approach:

Trial of Socrate and conviction, we only know about Socrate from Plato's writing, and about the trial from his book Apology. Is Socrate a real historical person? we dont know, there is no definitive proof about it. See? we have a lot of information about Socrate, his life, teaching, death... and from two sources mainly, his pupils... But no definitive proof.

Trial of Galileo and conviction, we have the trial minutes, we have Galileo's written work, we have the correspondance he had with multiple other scientists, and we can even visit his house.

Trial of Gaius Verres, around 70DC, we know all the story about it for it was a famous trial led by Cicero, with plenty of official documents about Verres public career and trial for corruption with Cicero's speechs published after the trial

The evidence for each of the above events is not equal, we can be sure of one, accept the second, and doubt the third...
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
Thank you for the clarifications.

Let me try this approach:

Trial of Socrate and conviction, we only know about Socrate from Plato's writing, and about the trial from his book Apology. Is Socrate a real historical person? we dont know, there is no definitive proof about it. See? we have a lot of information about Socrate, his life, teaching, death... and from two sources mainly, his pupils... But no definitive proof.

Trial of Galileo and conviction, we have the trial minutes, we have Galileo's written work, we have the correspondance he had with multiple other scientists, and we can even visit his house.

Trial of Gaius Verres, around 70DC, we know all the story about it for it was a famous trial led by Cicero, with plenty of official documents about Verres public career and trial for corruption with Cicero's speechs published after the trial

The evidence for each of the above events is not equal, we can be sure of one, accept the second, and doubt the third...

i think the more relevant level that is being skipped over here pertains to how did the historians establish the validity of plato's tetralogies or plato's dialogues in order to deem it valid in determining the historicity of socrates? in particular that the oldest surviving complete manuscript of the work dates back to the 9th century, close to 1400 years post plato, in addition most of what precedes that surviving copy for long centuries is very few fragments and little pieces, with only two of them dating back to before the first century, the oldest having less than 10 words.

for that there is a methodology in place that examines not simply the physical evidence, ie the trail of papyrus fragments, but also the surrounding cultural anthropological scenes and their evolution with time, in addition to third party evidence. different weights are attached to each type of evidence depending on its nature; for instance in times of war, a record of praise from a enemy weighs more than a compliment from an ally, unbiased sources get extra weight for credibility, and so on; and all of that goes into forming a certainty factor that is used for establishing historicity. granted this is a rather simplistic description, but it serves well for the process of clarification.

the same methods when applied to the spread of Christianity, the circumstances in which it started, the insignificance of a man from gualile at the time, the geographical distribution, the cultural impact, the manuscripts of the letters exchanged between the early churches fathers, the epistles of paul and the apostles followed by the gospels, along with the observations from third party and independent sources, supplemented by the two historians tacitus and josephus, it all serves to establish historicity, in particular when the amplitude of evidence corroborate each other.

the cumulative result of the above allows the scholars to say with confidence, and without dwelling on matters of faith or religion, that Christ was a real person not a myth.
 
Last edited:

Totenkopf

New Member
i think the more relevant level that is being skipped over here pertains to how did the historians establish the validity of plato's tetralogies or plato's dialogues in order to deem it valid in determining the historicity of socrates? in particular that the oldest surviving complete manuscript of the work dates back to the 9th century, close to 1400 years post plato, in addition most of what precedes that surviving copy for long centuries is very few fragments and little pieces, with only two of them dating back to before the first century, the oldest having less than 10 words.

for that there is a methodology in place that examines not simply the physical evidence, ie the trail of papyrus fragments, but also the surrounding cultural anthropological scenes and their evolution with time, in addition to third party evidence. different weights are attached to each type of evidence depending on its nature; for instance in times of war, a record of praise from a enemy weighs more than a compliment from an ally, unbiased sources get extra weight for credibility, and so on; and all of that goes into forming a certainty factor that is used for establishing historicity. granted this is a rather simplistic description, but it serves well for the process of clarification.

the same methods when applied to the spread of Christianity, the circumstances in which it started, the insignificance of a man from gualile at the time, the geographical distribution, the cultural impact, the manuscripts of the letters exchanged between the early churches fathers, the epistles of paul and the apostles followed by the gospels, along with the observations from third party and independent sources, supplemented by the two historians tacitus and josephus, it all serves to establish historicity, in particular when the amplitude of evidence corroborate each other.

the cumulative result of the above allows the scholars to say with confidence, and without dwelling on matters of faith or religion, that Christ was a real person not a myth.
Our friends are simply not interested in cumulative evidence.

It's similar to asking someone how old is the universe and they answer:
I am 100% sure the universe is at least 100 years old, my grandfather was born 100 years ago and I saw him with my own eyes.
Prior to 100 years ago, I have no idea if the speed of light was the same or if the universe was expanding using at the same speed etc.


I have to admit it's a simple approach convenient for a lifestyle where one is his/her own god.
 

HmsBThn

Legendary Member
Issa (a.s) or commonly known as Jesus in the kuffar land, was real and a true prophet.
No need for historical documents, and proofs, the Quran said so.
 

Totenkopf

New Member
About your nickname though. What's the story? Why.
it's really simple, there are 2 reasons

1. I am interested in military history, particularly in the eastern front battles of the German army in ww2
2. It's a bait, sort of a canary in the coal mine, it goes like this:
  • If after debating someone, that person calls me a nazi, it proves that he is upset at losing and has nothing else personal to attack me with except my avatar
  • If before even debating someone, that person calls me a nazi like @Manifesto did in the thread above, it indicates that the person is a kid (at least mentally) and not worth wasting my time on in future posts
;)
 
Top