Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
prophesies that you only know about AFTER the fact don´t prove anything either.....
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
prophesies that you only know about AFTER the fact don´t prove anything either.....
No its not. Whats wrong with you. Havent I told you Im not a christian? I dont believe it. I play devils advocate all the time here but I usually keep it a secret. I dont want people to know how really conflicted I am :laugh4: Im a Gemini I cant help it. And no I dont believe in astrology either.Quote:
Fine, you blindly accept it as fact. That's fine.
You however blindly follow that he didnt not exist and that anyone who believes that he did or follows his religion is silly. I keep telling you keep an open mind around here or your going to get into trouble. If theres one thing ive learned here it dont be so dang sure of yourself. Stop posting in absolutes. As if yours is the only opinion based in reality.
I was referring to Navaros actually. But you never answered my questions :P. I blindly accept that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus aside from construed 'evidence' manufactured decades after his supposed lifetime by what can only be termed Christian apologetics.
Again your statement is conflicted. How can you blindly accept there is no evidence? People have posted evidence you just dont accept it or you try to refute it. You blindly accept the premise that there was no Jesus. It fits in nicely with your current train of thought. If you dont believe in god one could hardly expect you to believe in Jesus. But again what is your view on Islam? Are they as silly?Quote:
I blindly accept that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus aside from construed 'evidence' manufactured decades after his supposed lifetime by what can only be termed Christian apologetics.
Maybe you missed my response on Islam from the last page. Besides, I have yet to see any factual, hard evidence that you claim people have given here. Care to re-hash it for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by I SAID
You really think so huh? Im sure you have proof of this even though like most other things you claim to prove its impossible to do so.Quote:
Islam is actually the fastest growing religion and will soon overtake Christianity.
Again though I will counter your argument so you wont have to bother. I admit you may be correct.
Total adherents New from conversion # of adherents to make one new convert:
Muslims
1,188,242,789 - 865,558 - 1,372
Christians
1,999,563,838 - 2,501,396 - 799
Quote:
The Islamic religion has a long history of myth making. The claim they are the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth.
Funny how a smaller part of a bigger pie is still bigger isnt it? PS I dont back the peasant bit.Quote:
From Table 1-2, you can see that presently every 24 hours, the world population of Christians increases by 69,000, whereas there are only 68,000 Muslims. The only reason Muslims are anywhere near Christians is because of higher birth rates in the parts of the world where Muslims are largest. The vast majority of the 69,000 Christians will be educated, whereas the majority of the 68,000 Muslims will be illiterate peasants without clean drinking water.
Quote:
Conclusion:
1. There are more new Christians added to the world population than any other religion on earth every day. This data makes the entire discussion about "rates of growth" irrelevant. The fact is today, that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical basis. This may change, but today, in 2004 AD, Christians take the prize for being the fastest growing religion.
2. On none of the 6 continents are Muslims the fastest growing religion.
3. That Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth at best and at worst a deliberate deception of solid statistical facts.
And unlike you heres the linkQuote:
From Table 1-1 you can see that while Muslims claim they are the fastest growing religion in the world (2.13), the statistics say that Baha'is are growing at a faster rate (2.28) and faster still are Zoroastrians (2.65).
Now again Im not claiming to be the expert on this nor am I claiming to be correct. Im just trying to teach you not to be so damned sure of yourself all the time.
WTF are you doing ??Quote:
:daisy:
Uh, Gawain.. I hope you noticed your data comes from a website with the word bible in the name.. LOL :) Can't be expected to be unbaised there can we.
LeftEyeNine-- Of course you can believe whatever you like, but no one doubts the Prophet (peace be upon him and all) liked little girls. and I mean little girls.
Hes an equal opportunity basher :laugh4: At least he answered my question.
Someone here to do what this thread needs please ?
It's been posted a lot already in this thread by Gawain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Navaros, what do you consider proof? Some fabricated writings from long after the supposed events? Come on now.. you need empirical data from various sources to confirm anything in history, which is, for example, why we know that Augustus existed. Not Jesus.
How is it that Christ is fair game but as soon as he brings up Mohamed the thread needs to be closed?Quote:
Someone here to do what this thread needs please ?
Not this again. Dispute the facts not the source. Besides I didnt claim they were right now did I. You just dont get it.Quote:
Uh, Gawain.. I hope you noticed your data comes from a website with the word bible in the name.. LOL :) Can't be expected to be unbaised there can we.
Only if you believe the Koran and that it tells the truth. It can also be interpreted to say differently. Im assuming you are discussing his marriage to a 6 year old. Even the age is in dispute plus the fact that rulers back then often took child brides. There is no indication he consumated the marriage until she was 9:laugh4: But again we cant be sure of that.Quote:
LeftEyeNine-- Of course you can believe whatever you like, but no one doubts the Prophet (peace be upon him and all) liked little girls. and I mean little girls.
Pliny the Younger and Josephus' writings which confirm Jesus Christ were not fabricated and there is zero evidence to reasonably suggest that they were. The "best evidence" given so far that they were fabrications is that "A Jewish man couldn't write kindly about Jesus Christ". :idea2:
Uh, on the contrary, they are.
No doubt, Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.
This is what he says in the "magic statement".
BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...Quote:
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
– Josephus (aka Joseph ben Matthias) The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3: the so called Testimonium Flavianum
Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.
The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."
Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.
It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.
Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time. Pliny famously reports to his emperor:
Note that Pliny is relaying what those arrested said they believed (and there is no reference here to a 'Jesus.')Quote:
'Christians ... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. '
(Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97)
Pliny had convened trials of Christians, not because of their beliefs but because he had ' forbidden political associations' which he obviously suspected them of forming. He continues:
Some of those arrested recanted, worshipped the imperial image and state gods, and cursed Christ. But Pliny is uncertain how to proceed with numerous others in what he describes as a widespread 'contagion' and asks Trajan for guidance. Trajan's celebrated reply is:Quote:
'Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.'
The real value of this correspondence (the only example of its kind to survive the Christian dark age) is not that it is some 'proof' of Jesus's existence (which it manifestly is not) but evidence of the toleration of Roman jurisprudence in the 'golden age' of the Empire.Quote:
' They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it -- that is, by worshiping our gods -- even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance.'
As far as Mohammed goes, The hadith collections of Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875) are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims. Both quote Aisha herself claiming she was six or seven at the time of her marriage and nine when the marriage was consummated.
I'm going to presume based on your tone and statements that you are portraying this as a 'fact', that Hay Zeus is the most 'well known' person to ever have lived. As such, you need to 1. re-read the definition of what a 'fact' is, and 2. provide some evidence beyond your grandstanding and empty 'evidence.' Just because YOU firmly believe that he is the most well known doesn't actually make it so. In fact if you tried to produce anything for point 2. I doubt I'd believe it because measuring something of this magnitude is all but impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
oh and besides, if you want to know what the real Christians believed, look to the so called Gnostic writings. They are the first actual Christian writings, carbon dated to around 50 BCE. They paint a remarkably differnet picture of your standard god-man than you might be used to and have all kinds of interesting aliens and different planets in them too.
I never called Jesus a masochistic nail-o-phile fool,although I could make up my own truth to prove it. Never do I intend to say such nor am I having such ideas. Since this is the second time religion bashing occurs here following a moderator warning, I request what needs to be done to be done.Quote:
How is it that Christ is fair game but as soon as he brings up Mohamed the thread needs to be closed?
what's the point if we all can't talk about these things like adults? We're all entitled to our opinions on things, if someone's opinion disturbs you, I suggest you examine your own faith. Otherwise ignore it. These conversations about religion are fascinating, I think, and useful. For those with faith, it can only increase their faith if it doesnt destroy it.
My two cents, which most likely means nothing around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Zak, if you can provide some reasonable evidence to back up your earlier statements re: Mohammed, then my take is Sorry, LEN. He's calling it like it is, whether you like it or not.
If not, then that smacks of baseless bashing which the mods kindly reminded us not to do.
Edit - \/\/\/\/\/ Welp, except for the seizures, looks reasonable enough to me. /shrug
Okie-Dokie: From Wiki
Quote:
Evidence that Aisha was nine
The hadith collections of Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875) are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims. Both quote Aisha herself claiming she was six or seven at the time of her marriage and nine when the marriage was consummated.
[edit] Sahih Bukhari
According to Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a young girl . [8]
According to Urwah ibn al-Zubayr:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[9]
According to Aisha:
the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).[10]
According to Ursa ibn al-Zubayr:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[11]
[edit] Sahih Muslim
According to Aisha:
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. [12]
According to Aisha:
Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old [13]
According to Aisha:
Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. [14]
[edit] Sunan Abu Dawud
According to Aisha:
"The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter." [15]
According to Aisha:
When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair was up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine. [16]
[edit] Tarikh al-Tabari
According to Aisha:
My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me." ... "(The Prophet) married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was eighteen years old when he died". [17]
According to Abd al-Hamid b. Bayan al-Sukkari:
Abd Allah b. Safwan together with another person came to Aishah and Aishah said (to the latter), "O so and so, have you heard what Hafsah has been saying?" He said, "Yes, o Mother of the Faithful." Abd Allah b. Safwan asked her, "What is that?" She replied, "There are nine special features in me that have not been in any woman, except for what God bestowed on Maryam bt. Imran. By God, I do not say this to exalt myself over any of my companions." "What are these?" he asked. She replied, "The angel brought down my likeness; the Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin...." [
First off thats not an accurate quote even. Then you use it to attack its authenticty.Quote:
This is what he says in the "magic statement".
Quote:
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
– Josephus (aka Joseph ben Matthias) The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3: the so called Testimonium Flavianum
I didnt give you the link last time as I didnt think it needed since Im not trying to prove it either way.But you force my hand. This counters every argument youve made.
When were the gospels written and by whom?
No you have not but there was many a time Ive seen christians refered to as the followers of goat herders and carpenters. Its not Zaks fault whats written about Mohamed. Although belief in this seems even more foolish than in christianity to me Im not about to call those who believe it fools themselves. Im sure they have good reasons for beleiveing as they do. But the case can be made that Mohamed was a murdering war mongering pedophile. I must admit that I have made this argument countless times myslef and it would be hypocrytical of me to attack Zak for it. But I wasnt there so I cant say at what age the youngest girl he ever had sex with was.Quote:
I never called Jesus a masochistic nail-o-phile fool,although I could make up my own truth to prove it.
uh, show me where that quote is not accurate...
and from your Christian Apologetic website:
LOL.. its obvious.Quote:
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry
Thanks for all moderator comments and for driving a thread that could have led to an interesting discussion down the gutter :no:
My apologies to the thread starter and all patrons who tried to have a good discussion and to abstain from the usual religion bashing - unfortunately this did not work out :shame:
Closed.