If Jesus was born of a virgin mother, and He didn’t have a father to give him a Y chromosome, where would He pee when visiting North Carolina?

wet-xxxx....  You are SUCH an A-HOLE!!!!

Wvit further proves his ignorance of Christianity!

Pity him because hatred rules his life!

so you don't know either?

You are the one claiming Jesus wasn't male!

Why do you hate Christians so very much?

Least you and Jesus have something in common. Vit

I didn't say he wasn't male.  I said he didn't have an Y chromosome.  He can self identify anyway he wants, but in NC he can use the men's room.

Prove Jesus didn't have a "Y" chromosome!

yeah byt, we're both just people.  ask the Jews, they'll tell you that Jesus wasn't divine.

prove he did d2.  I don't think there's anyway to prove it one way or the other is there?

I'm pretty sure he was a guy though.  But there's no proof he was a god.

If he was a guy then he did have a "Y" chromosome!

Why all the proselytizing?

Nobody ever said he was God when he was walking the Earth!

Again, you prove your ignorance of Christianity!

Wvit further proves his ignorance of Christianity!
 
Liberals are proof God had a sense of humor..

Very true!

According to Christianity Jesus was God in human form.  You do know the trinity don't you?



In Philippians 2:6, Paul spoke of Christ as “existing in the form of God” The term “existing” is not a past tense form. It translates the Greek term huparchon, a present tense participle. The present tense reveals that the Savior’s existence, in the “form of God,” is a sustained mode of being, not one that was interrupted by the incarnation.

A.T. Robertson called attention to the difference between the present tense, huparchon (denoting “eternal existence in the morphe [form] of God”), and the Lord’s “becoming” (aorist tense) in the likeness of man (1931, 445). There was a time when the second Person of the Godhead did not exist as man; there has never been a time when he was not in “the form of God.”

Contrary to the evidence, however, it has been alleged that whereas Christ existed in the form of God prior to the incarnation, he divested himself of that status while on Earth. Finally, according to the theory under review, Jesus resumed the form-of-God nature when he returned to heaven. There is no biblical support for this concept, which violates the explicit testimony of Scripture.


https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/59-did-jesus-christ-exist-in-the-form-of-god-on-earth

Again, Wvit responds to something I didn't say!

Try, again!

you make no sense d2.  you talk in circles and confuse yourself.

DaBoz redefines virginity to suit his opinion. Bizarre!

My, how atheists attack the tenets of Christianity.

But you never see them attacking Islam.  I wonder why.

If Jesus had a mom but not a dad, the dna would be mom-only and thus Jesus was a clone of Mary and born female. So either Jesus was a woman or was the first transsexual recorded.

DaBoz redefines virginity to suit his opinion. Bizarre!

That happens quiet often on this board. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

But in this case DaBoz is right. In Biblical times a virgin was a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be (but does not have to be) an unmarried virgin or a married young woman. It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether that woman is a virgin or not.

I don't have any more favorable view of Islam than I do any other religion. What you don't seem to understand is atheists don't disbelieve in the existence of any God. Therefore one cannot be held in higher regard than another. We are all entitled to our beliefs or lack of. I do not attack Christianity, nor Islam, nor Judaism, or Buddhism. They are all equally non-existent in my opinion. That does not stop me from pointing out hypocrisy when I see it. If there were any Muslims posting hypocritical messages on this board I would be more than happy to point that out too.

Local, so you are saying that up until modern times every woman was a virgin right up until the moment she gave birth? If true a barren harlot would have been considered a virgin. Is that true? Just asking because I had never heard that before.

That implies that every first born back then was a virgin birth. That is very clearly NOT what the bible is saying nor what christians have believed and most continue to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

You are arguing over the meaning of one word. The sections in the bible that refer to it are NOT relying on that one word, they make it explicitly clear that Mary is not pregnant from sex but by the holy spirit. Joseph even considers leaving her over it.

And then there is what christians actually believed from around the 3rd century to today, which is she got pregnant before having sex. Any changes to meaning of the word virgin is a red herring.

My religious question is what a priest would think if we were to discover today a poor monk confused celibate with celebrate.

D2D: Prove Jesus didn't have a Y chromosome.

D2D, who are you to make demands?  You can't prove prove Jesus even existed.

http://alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/24.gif)  Oh, my, if it's on alternet, then it must be true. 

Uh, DUMB_john. You didn't prove that Jesus ever existed; all you did was do what you always do here, prove to us again--for the umpteenth time, no less--just how incredibly stupid and ignorant you really are. But hey! If duke_john  posts something on this message board it's always stupid and ignorant.

HAHA


 

Come on, hawkie, prove that the movement that Jesus initiated and spread across the globe was founded by a group of old White men.

Local5th, I should had made it clear that I was referring to the historical Jesus and not the Jesus of Christian mythology. And given the fact of Christianity's pagan origins (and its adoption of the pagan virgin-birth myth), there's enough evidence to support the  argument that Jesus--if he even existed at all--was an ordinary mortal just like you, me, duke_john, and D2D--not the demi-god  son of a supreme being. 

Could be hawk. But miss the point. The concept of religion is based on faith, not proof.

I suppose others notice the attacks and questioning on this board of Judeo-Christian beliefs, but never a word against Islam in any way. 

Islam is no more or less valid than any other religion. Our constitution protects religious freedom... period.

Islam is no more or less valid than any other religion. Our constitution protects religious freedom... period.

True. But the left does like to belittle Christians more than Muslims. I figure that's cause Christians will turn the other cheek and Muslims will kill you. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
                                                                                                                                       

 have seen the allegedly liberal SNL skits ridiculing Mohammed (Not Mohammed Ali) and followers of Islam, I have seen allegedly liberal publications printing cartoons ridiculing Muslims. There have been some posted to this board. How many references have to be made and shown before there are no more claims that no liberal ever speaks against Islam? 

Jesus was circumcised because He was like any other Jewish male. Remember, Jesus was a Jew and under Old Testament law (Gal. 4:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gal.%204.4)). He was to be circumcised on the eighth day after His birth. “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants,” (Gen. 17:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen.%2017.12)).

The circumcision of Jesus is an event from the life of Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke, which states in verse 2:21 that Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth (traditionally January 1).

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/mohammed-cartoon-collection/ (https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/mohammed-cartoon-collection/)

Here's a collection for you.

If Jesus is everywhere all the time..why would he go to the bathroom in NC?

 
If he were everywhere all the time, he pees there all the time also, Right?? LOL

How about we get both at once? A package deal if you will.

There comes a time, when you know Christ and Christians are being intentional mocked to elicit a response... the only two responses should be silence and prayer. IMHO.

Wvit, how do you know he didn't receive a Y chromosome?  After all, God can do anything...if he chose to produce a son, he, as the universe's first and greatest scientist, would not have messed that up...

Just sayin...

I answered that question way back, you nuts just talk in circles don't you?




If Jesus was born of a virgin mother, and He didn’t have a father ...
« Reply #9 on: 04 26, 16, 07:31:15:PM »   Reply


prove he did d2.  I don't think there's anyway to prove it one way or the other is there?

I'm pretty sure he was a guy though.  But there's no proof he was a god.

Local5th: The concept of religion is based on faith, not proof.

Sorry, Local5th. I intended to respond immediately and continue the flow of our discussion, but I was called away and couldn't get back to you until now.

Yes. The concept of religion is based on faith, but faith is nothing more than a strongly held belief that  is not necessarily true. In contrast, anything that can be proven true is a fact: truth is fact. The belief that Jesus actually existed, albeit a strongly held belief held by millions of Christians worldwide, has not been proven true and, therefore, cannot be argued as fact.

Evidence is, a fact that can be used to prove whether an opinion, belief, claim, argument, etc., is either true or false. Whereas it can be proven as fact that Buddha, Confucius, and Muhammed actually existed, the existence of Moses, Mary, and Jesus has never been proven true, despite the strongly held belief of their existence. 

During a kayaking trip in 1999, Dr. Mary Neal became pinned under the water when her kayak capsized, making it impossible for her to breathe for anywhere between 15 and 25 minutes. That’s when she says she experienced a near-death experience that brought her into the presence of God, Jesus, and angels.

During the experience, God told her that her family would be facing an upcoming tragedy and would need her to help them through. Specifically, her nine-year-old son Willie was going to die—but she wasn’t told when, where, or how. Ten years later, at age 19, Willie was killed in a car accident in Maine by a driver who was on his cell phone.

http://www.today.com/id/48242202/ns/today-today_books/t/i-was-home-former-skeptic-shares-glimpse-heaven/
...................


Colton Burpo (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/27/heaven-real-father-son-todd-and-colton-burpo-fox-and-friends) wasn’t quite four years old when his appendix burst, landing him in a hospital for emergency surgery. And when he awoke two hours later, he had an amazing story to tell. He said he had been to heaven, where he met Jesus, John The Baptist, God, and even family members who had passed away previously—including a baby sister that his mother had lost due to a miscarriage. Neither of his parents had ever mentioned the miscarriage to him.

..................................



The most noteworthy account experienced first-hand by Harvard trained brain neurosurgeon of 25 years, Dr. Eben Alexander.   Before his experience, he did not believe existence of a non-physical spirit. Trained in western medical school and surrounded by medical colleagues who are deeply invested in the materialism view of the universe, he thought that the idea of a soul was outlandish.  Like most “skeptics”, he believed stories of the afterlife to be hallucinations or products of the human imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/books/dr-eben-alexanders-tells-of-near-death-in-proof-of-heaven.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

did you buy his book sweaty?

 That’s when she says she experienced a near-death experience that brought her into the presence of God, Jesus, and angels.

Caused by Oxygen deprivation and the minds efforts to cope. A wonderful series is on TV on this exact topic.

That is my opinion too DaBoz. Careful now... you're treading dangerously close to being reasonable. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/wink.gif)

in re: Reply #57

In an apparent attempt to prove the existence of the Christian demigod Jesus, sweetwater5s9 submitted two accounts of Near Death Experience (NDE) for the forum's perusal (both accounts featured the presence of well-known figures in Christian mythology).

Do those Near Death Experiences prove the existence of a Supreme Being or that persons depicted in Christian legend and folklore ever existed? No! Of course they don't;  they don't really prove anything at all. There is no real evidence provided to supports the claim that Dr. Mary Neal and Carlton Burpo actually did experience the events they reported; and, furthermore, an NDE, considered by most neuroscientists to be a hallucinatory state caused by various physiological and psychological factors, can hardly be used as hard evidence to prove the existence of Jesus or anything else.   

That's what reasonable people think about what you offer as proof of your arguments, hawks.

DID ALLAH FUCK GOATS AND TELL SUNNIS ANDD SHIAS TO KILL EACH OTHER, AND TO KILL FAGS? WHY DOES THE LEFT ALWAYS CRITICIZE THE CHRISTIANS BUT NEVER QUESTIOB THE QURAN WHICH TELLS THEM TO KILL FAGS???

Do those Near Death Experiences prove the existence of a Supreme Being or that persons depicted in Christian legend and folklore ever existed? No! Of course they don't;  they don't really prove anything at all. There is no real evidence provided to supports the claim that Dr. Mary Neal and Carlton Burpo actually did experience the events they reported; and, furthermore, an NDE, considered by most neuroscientists to be a hallucinatory state caused by various physiological and psychological factors, can hardly be used as hard evidence to prove the existence of Jesus or anything else.  

Someday, maybe, our scientist will advance to the point they can understand and explain God's creation/plan. But chances are mankind will destroy itself before that day comes.

Cause ya can't fix stupid DaBoz.

Even a loving parent can't stop their child from destroying themselves.

IS HAWKS REALLY THAT IGNORANT? HE REFERS TO CHRIST AS A DEMIGOD, MEANING A LESSER. GOD, BUT CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HAVE A RANKING OF GODS, AND WHILE WE DO HAVE THE FATHER THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IT IS CHRIST AND ONLY CHRIST THAT IS WORSHIPPED IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. SO IT SEEMS THE LEFT KNOWS AS MUCH ANOUT RELIGION AS THEY DO ABOUT THE MILITARY

To: DaBoz, duke_john, and upyrwazoo

Do you really believe that attacking me with your silly ad hominems  will somehow provide evidence that proves the person your faith requires you to believe in for your salvation is someone other than just a mythical figure borrowed from the pagan religions from which Christianity arose?

And Local5th, did you really have a point to make or were you just typing something  just to pass the time. Reading your responses, I suspect the latter.

Do you think starting every post by smearing everyone makes you right. Do you think Being a Muslim gives you the right to attack or question others religious beliefs..

DaBoz, do you really think that typing in boldface and ending a sentence with two periods refutes the evidence that Jesus never existed? Do you really think I care about your accusing me of posting smears when after seeing your numerous posst about "Muzzies?" And, by the way, do you think you can prove the existence of jesus by pretending I'm a Muslim? You sound like that other idiot duke_john who thinks pretending I'm a "foreigner" refutes my argument. You two right-wingnut crackpots must be having a near death experience. You know, hallucinating.

DaBOZ, are you a Christianand can you prove Jesus ever existed? Can you prove I'm a Muslim?

Uh-huh. I didn't think so. Sit down and shut the fuck up, you bat-shit crazy bigoted ass clown.

You are a foreigner, hawkie.  Your lack of fundamental knowledge of American thinking proves it.  Your use of British spelling is a dead giveaway.

Local5th: Seems to me you are the one running off at the mouth just to pass time[,]Haw


You're accusing me of running off at the mouth! LOL It comes as no surprise to me that you would completely ignore the nonsense being posted by your pals  DaBoz and duke_john. What do you call what those fools are doing, engaging in intelligent disciourse? Yeah...Right.


LOL


But at least you didn't attribute my post to another this time.


Dan used a variation of a classic logical fallacy and fallacy of argumentation and debate, and you're doing the same thing here. Dan (and you) are harping on the fact that I confused one of my opponents with another, something that I freely admit I've done in this forum on many occasions. The variation of the straw man fallacy that you and Dan used goes like this: an advocate spots a minor defect in an opponent's argument and refutes it. But then he or she goes on to  act as if he or she has  "refuted" the opponent's entire argument. Well, harping on the fact hat I confused one of you right-wingers with another--something that's very easy to do in this forum, because you all present the same fallacious arguments--in no way refutes any argument or claim I made during the course o this thread. So if truth be told, your harping on the fact that I confused you with someone else is irrelevant. Or perhaps it could be  called  what it really is--a red herring. You know, the logical fallacy and fallacy of argument that is interjected into s debate to create an irrelevant distraction in order to refocus attention away from the main issue and onto an entirely irrelevant topic. That's apparently a favourite tactic of our forum's right-wingers.   
 

Fallacies and red herrings are hallmarks of hawkiepoop's writings.

You're confused again, duke_john; logical fallacies and fallacies of argumentation make up the bulk of what you post here. The rest is just stupid bullshit like you just posted. Damn! I thought D2D was a moron, but apparently your stupidity and ignorance has given me cause to reconsider my assessment of her and  compare it with the one I have of your DUMB ass.

Seriously now and without BULLSHIT.  Why should it bother you that there are those who take and find COMFORT in this belief? 

If they believe and they understand what they believe...why do you actually care? 

Of course they may believe that YOU think it is a fable.

Do that give you a right to tell others that it is a lie? 

hawkiepoop is a foreigner and an ignoramus.

Period.

Case closed.

Yet, it is intolerant liberals who attack Christians!

Liberals are  consumed with hatred toward anyone with standards!

in re: reply #81

KensanIV, I won't attempt answer your questions until you remove the logical fallacy upon which they are based.

Your logical fallacy: Fallacy of Language (ambiguity)--you demanded that I answer your questions sans bullshit without defining what you mean by "bullshit."

A critical reader immediately spots your logical fallacy and fallacy of argument and also realises that any answer given, no matter how logical, will most likely be rejected--especially so if it exposes the asker's flawed logic and unsound reasoning and most definitely so if the answer either refutes or debunks a closely held belief of the person who asked the question. I see that tactic used all the time in this forum to "refute" logical arguments. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if your response to this post is--Bullshit!

Bullshit is the best word to define a hawkiepoo post.

IMHO, you cannot logically lump Local5th with the pathetic imbecilic morons that Duke_John and DaBoz prove themselves to be. Local5th and I don't always agree, but he is always agreeable. The next time he starts a post anything like those of the two aforementioned antisocial miscreants will be his first.

Jesus was circumcised because He was like any other Jewish male. Remember, Jesus was a Jew and under Old Testament law (Gal. 4:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gal.%204.4)). He was to be circumcised on the eighth day after His birth. “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants,” (Gen. 17:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen.%2017.12)).

The circumcision of Jesus is an event from the life of Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke, which states in verse 2:21 that Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth (traditionally January 1).

Having trained at Duke University and taught and practiced as a surgeon at Harvard, he knows brain science as well as anyone. And science, he said, cannot explain his experience.

“During my coma my brain wasn’t working improperly,” he writes in his book. “It wasn’t working at all.”

“My entire neocortex — the outer surface of the brain, the part that makes us human — was entirely shut down, inoperative,” he said.

It took him two years, he said, to even use the word God in discussing his experience. But then he felt an obligation to all those dealing with near-death experience, and particularly to his fellow doctors. He felt compelled to let them know.

So far he has spoken at the Lynchburg hospital, where he was treated, and said he has been invited to address a group of neurosurgeons at Stanford.

He still hopes to tour “major medical centers and hospices and nursing homes,” he said, to relate his experience in distinctly medical environments.

His messages to those who deal with dying is one of relief. “Our spirit is not dependent on the brain or body,” he said. “It is eternal, and no one has one sentence worth of hard evidence that it isn’t.”


http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/Oprah-and-Neurosurgeon-Eben-Alexander-Proof-of-Heaven


And yes, wvit, I bought the book.

duke_john: Bullshit is the best word to define a hawkiepoo post.

And what word best describes your posts, duke_john, rigmarole, malarkey, nonsense, bunkum, prattle, drivel...? Or should we just stay with bullshit?





 

Here's your pic,  hawkiepoop, you clown.

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1616792.1392610725%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/clowns17n-2-web.jpg)

sweetwater5s9:  Having trained at Duke University and taught and practiced as a surgeon at Harvard, he knows brain science as well as anyone. And science, he said, cannot explain his experience.

And whatever you're babbling about here doesn't provide an explanation  that Jesus ever existed either. Does it, swetwater5s9. And it does prove that the purported near death experiences ever happened. Isn't that right, sweetwater5s9?

Jesus was circumcised because He was like any other Jewish male. Remember, Jesus was a Jew and under Old Testament law (Gal. 4:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gal.%204.4)). He was to be circumcised on the eighth day after His birth.

But does that clam, found only in Galatians. 4:4,  prove that Jesus actually existed? No, sweetwater5s9. Actually, it doesn't. What it actually tells us is that, in accordance  with Judaic tradition, genital mutilation is performed on 8-day-old males.

The circumcision of Jesus is an event from the life of Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke, which states in verse 2:21 that Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth (traditionally January 1).

Logical fallacy: Tautology--saying the same thing twice in different words.

Simply repeating the claim in different words that Jesus was circumcised when he was 8-days-old is not proof that Jesus was , in fact, a real person.

The circumcision of Jesus is an event from the life of Jesus.  Gospel of Luke, which states in verse 2:21 that Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth (traditionally January 1).

Don't want to believe in God?  Don't.

But don't mock those who do with nonsense like this, hawkie.

sweetwater5s9,

Your logical fallacy: Repeated Assertion--You continue to repeat an assertion although it's  been shown that it will not support your argument.

Your simply repeating that the Gospel of Luke says Jesus was circumcised in accordance with Judaic tradition in no way proves that Jesus actually existed. Does it, sweetwater5s9?

in re: Reply #93

duke_john,

Whether I believe in God or not is not the issue here. The real issue is the inability of you and your supporters in this debate to refute the claim--made by a growing number of scholars--that there's no real evidence to support the claim that the person the Bible calls Jesus  ever existed as a real person. And, by the way, my presenting an article to the forum that questions whether there was actually a real Jesus is not mockery. My saying  that Jesus fucked a goat would be mockery.

You are saying that people who believe in God are fools.

Get it yet?

To: Baretta19, Byteryder, DaBoz, duke_john, D2D, KensanIV, Local5th, sweetwater5s9, takncarabizniz, WWV10MHZ, and xwxzy321

A growing number of scholars are openly questioning or actively arguing against the historicity of Jesus,

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reasons_to_suspect_that_jesus_never_existed/
                  
The hyperlink above will take you to an article that lists five reason  to suspect Jesus never existed. Rather than wasting your time arguing with opponents in this forum, why aren't you providing evidence to refute the claims made by the article's author?

duke_john: You are saying that people who believe in God are fools. Get it yet?

You always get it wrong, duke_john. I never said people who believe in God are fools. That's what your lying ass said. So evidently you are saying people who believe in God are fools.

(Hmmmm. I see you're now using D2D's tactic of putting words in my mouth. Right DUMB_john?)

(See reply #97)

I stand by my statement, asshole.

The article's author gave five reasons to suspect that Jesus never existed, Which onw are trying to refute with that bullshit you just posted, dickhead_john?

This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

To Tiberius Caesar:

A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.
Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came.

When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the ....

sweetwater5s9: This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.


So what? Where's your proof of the original letter's authenticity? Was it actually written by Pontius Pilate or was it--like the Gospels--written a century or more after the events described had occurred, by someone who never actually saw or knew  neither Pontius Pilate, Tiberius Caesar, nor Jesus?   


"Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and blah  blah blah blah blah...."

Now, gullible sweetwater5s9, you can take a seat and shut the fuck up, because the argument you're trying to present here doesn't hold water; it's shot full of holes and proves absolutely nothing, and that includes proof of the existence of the historical Jesus.

1965hawks has eyes but cannot see!

D2D,

Here's what I can see: I can see that neither you nor any of your supporters have yet to  refute a single reason the author gave to suspect that Jesus never existed. You're wasting your time arguing with me. You should be trying to find evidence to prove the article wrong. Good luck!

There is nothing anyone could say or do that would every convince you Jesus existed!

Your bigotry clouds your mind and your eyes!

I pity you for that!

He suspects?  That sounds like more bullshit from you, hawkshit.  But, that's all we get from you.

D2D: There is nothing anyone could say or do that would every convince you Jesus existed.

You always get it wrong, D2D. What's happening here is that neither you nor any of your supporters in this thread have yet to provide  convincing evidence to prove  Jesus ever existed

Your bigotry clouds your mind and your eyes.

You still don't get it; do you, D2D? Your arguing that I'm bigoted doesn't prove that the Jesus described in the New Testament was a real person. Does it?

I pity you for that.

Your pitying me doesn't prove the existence of the historical Jesus. Does it, loser?

Jesus started a movement local to an obscure land that swept through the world.  Atheists like you, intolerant and disrespectful, hate the idea.

Mock Islam, foreigner.  You never do.  I wonder why.  Maybe you aren't atheist, after all.

duke_john: He suspects?  That sounds like more bullshit from you, hawkshit.  But, that's all we get from you.

"He suspects?"

Don't try that silly bullshit with me, duke_john, you no-reading ignoramus! The author wrote an article that gave five reasons why a growing number of scholars suspect that Jesus never existed. Your post is typical of the bullshit you post on this message board on a regular basis--you know, like every fucking day. Bullshit is all we ever get from your stupid and ignorant ass.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reasons_to_suspect_that_jesus_never_existed/

 Jesus started a movement local to an obscure land that swept through the world.

 That's not true either, duped_john. You're talking out your ass again.

The vast majority of biblical scholars agree that Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus--hmmm. I wonder why. (LOL)--while the main influence is the Apostle Paul (who never actually met Jesus) and a Greek convert (who claimed he saw Jesus in a strange vision (hallucination).

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/founder_of_christianity.htm

 

Yeah, he "suspects."  That means shit to real scholars.

Your claim that Jesus did not start the movement to be known as Christianity is just insane.

This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

Hawk is just another conspiracy theorist. A few thousand years from now nobody will be able to prove he existed.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

At this time, I doubt his brain ever existed.

duke_john: Yeah, he "suspects."  That means shit to real scholars.

It's your argument that doesn't mean shit, you bullshitting windbag. I presented an article that listed five reasons why a growing number of scholars suspect the historical Jesus never existed. If you had actually read the article you would had seen that the article's topic is what scholars suspect, not what the article's author suspects.

What's obvious here is that you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. The article I presented gave five reasons to suspect the nonexistence of the historical Jesus. But instead of presenting evidence to refute that claim you continue to waste your time arguing against me. You continue to attack me rather than the argument itself. Evidently, you still don't understand that the person who makes the argument is not the argument.

Your claim that Jesus did not start the movement to be known as Christianity is just insane.

My claim?Again, duke_john, if you had actually read the article, you would had seen that I made no such claim. And you would seen that it was the Apostle Paul and the pagan convert John who are credited with founding Christianity and spreading and spreading its beliefs. (Many biblical scholars and experts say that it was John alone, not Paul, who founded Christianity and was largely responsible for its gaining a foothold in Judea and then eventually spreading to Rome.) What's really insane is duke_john's penchant for talking out his ass.

1965hawks has eyes but cannot see!

Local5th: Hawk is just another conspiracy theorist. A few thousand years from now nobody will be able to prove he existed.

It's been two thousand years on and no one has yet to prove the existence of the historical Jesus, And if my existence can't be proven a few thousand years hence, does that prove the biblical Jesus actually existed as a real person?  Nope!

D2D: 1965hawks has eyes but cannot see.

When is D2D going to stop wasting her time babbling about 1965hawks, open his eyes, and look for evidence to refute the claim that the historical Jesus never really existed? The article I presented gave five reasons to suspect the nonexistence of. the biblical Jesus. Not surprisingly, the lying little bitch D2D has yet to refute any of those claims. All she can do is sit there with the rest of her misinformed, right-wingnut pals and argue with me, which, of course, does not prove that Jesus actually existed as a real person. Isn't that right, D2Delusional?

1965hawks has eyes but cannot see!

"This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C."
___sweetwater5s9, reply #112

No, sweetwater5s9. That's simply a repost of reply #101.

Your  logical fallacy: Repeated Assertion--simply repeating the same assertion, over and over again, without ever providing evidence  to support the assertion, or repeating an assertion that has been shown to lack merit.

Have you forgotten already, sweetwater5s9? In my response to reply #101, I pointed out the fact that the letter you cited cannot  be used as evidence to prove that the Jesus mentioned in the Bible was actually a real person. You presented a letter, purportedly written by Pontius Pilate, that supposedly verifies the existence of the historical Jesus. But the critical reader notices immediately that you provided no evidence to confirm the authenticity of the letter. In fact, you didn't even provide evidence to prove that the letter even existed in the first place. As I told you then, I'll tell you now: the letter you keep harping on proves absolutely nothing. And by the way, I suggest you read the following article before you decide to submit another silly post using the Pontius Pilate letter as proof that the biblical Jesus was a real person.

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2013/05/the-fraudulent-letter-of-pontius-pilate.html

What a crock from hawkie!  All this effort on his part for an atheist to become relevant.

The shit head expected Jesus to walk the known world, spreading the Word all by Himself.  It is strangely reminiscent of Soviet Communism, where pastors could not teach the faith to more than a single person at a time.  But, atheists think alike and hate the concept of Christianity.  Note that I did not mention any other religion, because the atheists here attack only Christianity.

The question that should be asked of our liberals posters.

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO YOU IF A BELIEF IN JESUS AND HIS IMPACT ON THE WORLD BOTHER YOU? 

It certainly is no skin off your nose if it gives millions comfort.  Or even if they are right or wrong/ 

Assume for a moment it is true... Will you be able to find another way if you are wrong on the judgment day?

You are right Kensan. Some of us non-believers are militant about it. I don't understand why, any more than I understand militant believers insisting we all become Christians, or militant Muslims insisting we convert to Islam. Our beliefs or lack of should be personal, and keep the government out of them. We don't want government in churches, mosques, or temples, and we don't want religion in our government.

I think that's why some are so vociferous about their lack of belief, either of an off world deity, or organized religion. One can be spiritual with neither.

Even worse for atheists is the fact that our founders based the Constitution and our government on Judeo-Christian principles, at a time when this nation was a Christian nation, without any sect allowed to become a government theocracy unlike with Islam.

Christianity is not the problem.

duke_john: What a crock from hawkie!

No, duke_john. What a big pile of bullshit from you! The poppycock you posted didn't even come close to proving that the Jesus biblical Jesus was in fact a real person, and your silly babbling about me was a complete waste of your time, because even a fool like you should realise that attacking me  will not prove that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed as a real person. Will it, dopey_john? 

You have not even come close to proving that the Jesus biblical Jesus was not in fact a real person or who He claimed he was, hawk.   Just bs as usual.


Was Mohammed a real person, btw, hawk?   Can you prove it?

A desperate sweetwter5s9 asked if the Prophet Muhammed was a real person,
Answer: Yes.

Then she asked if it could be proven if the Prophet actually existed.
Answer: Yes.

But the same cannot be said of Jesus. There is no eye-witness account of Jesus outside the Bible.

So what is sweetwater5s9's point here? Does she think that if Muhammed was a real person then so was Jesus?

And by the way, sweetfool, before you even try it--No. I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade you to believe the historical fact that Muhammed was a real person. And, don't think try to argue that my refusal to be distracted by your red herring, and go chasing off on a wild goose chase, is prof that Jesus actually existed as a real person.



 


 

Of course Jesus was real.  Only an idiot would ignore the evidence.

Hawkiepooh, You may be betting your next life on your denial.  It truly does not bother me or many others re-your denial.  We can do no more for you if you refuse to acknowledge your chance for salvation. 

KensanIV: Hawkiepooh, [y]ou may be betting your next life on your denial.
 
Evidently, you were betting I wouldn't spot your red herring. Huh, KensanIV? I bet you thought I would be distracted by it, forget about the original issue, and go flying off on a wild goose chase, and start a new debate on the topic of whether or not another unproven faith-based claim--an afterlife--is true or false.

Your logical fallacy and fallacy of argument: Red Herring.

A red herring, sometimes referred to as ignoring the question, sidetracks the original issue by bringing up an entirely different issue.

The question here is not how I'll fare in a hypothetical next life, but whether the person portrayed as Jesus in the Bible was actually a real person. But since neither you nor your supporters in this debate have been unable as yet to refute either of the five reasons given to suspect that Jesus never existed, you began babbling about my prospects in a hypothetical afterlife. And, of course, when you had succeeded in changing the original subject to a completely unrelated subject , you would had never returned to the original issue; and that would had conveniently spared you the task of providing evidence to refute the article's five reasons to suspect that Jesus never existed. Isn't that right, KensanIV?

duke_john: Of course Jesus was real.  Only an idiot would ignore the evidence.

Of course, the burning question here is. "What evidence has the idiot duke_john provided to prove the existence of a real Jesus?"

Let it go, hawkiepoop.  Let it go.  You lost and you look like a damned fool.

You and your f**ing red herrings.  Yes, I rather changed some of the subject... only to deflect the bull chit from the original post that referred to the "virgin birth and the lack of a human father." 

Those of us who believe know that it takes FAITH AND PERSONAL BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING.  And an acceptance and faith in the words and lessons that was handed down.

I have a "Red Herring" for you.

To repeat my original post. 

"The question that should be asked of our liberals posters.

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO YOU IF A BELIEF IN JESUS AND HIS IMPACT ON THE WORLD BOTHER YOU? 

It certainly is no skin off your nose if it gives millions comfort.  Or even if they are right or wrong"

Assume for a moment it is true... Will you be able to find another way if you are wrong on the judgment day?

Again and with the magic red herring... Why DOES IT BOTHER YOU??  Obviously it makes no difference except in your desire to be an ass. 

hawkiepoop anticipates his 72 virgins as he continues on his jihad against Christianity.

Even worse for atheists is the fact that our founders based the Constitution and our government on Judeo-Christian principles, at a time when this nation was a Christian nation, without any sect allowed to become a government theocracy, unlike with Islam.

Christianity is not the problem.

hawkiepoop should move from his Islamic country and see how superior a culture is with laws based upon Judaeo-Christian principles.

kensanIV: You and your f**ing red herrings.

Uh-uh, kensanIV. In actuality, what we have here is you and your fucking red herrings.



Yes, I "rather" changed "some" of the subject.

Your admitting you altered the facts to suit your bogus argument underscores your dishonesty and, more important, your inability to defend your argument or refute the evidence I presented that gives five logical reasons to suspect that the person portrayed in the New testament as the Son of God most likely never existed.

Those of us who believe know that it takes faith and blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

I pointed out early on in this debate that faith is a firmly held belief, and also noted that, no matter how strong held, a belief is not necessarily true and, therefore, can't be argued as truth (fact).

I have a "Red Herring" for you. To repeat my original post[:]  The question that should be asked of our liberals posters [is], "Why does it matter to you if a belief in Jesus and his teachings, believed by his followers, bother you?"

That question is indeed a red herring, kensanIV. When did I ever make the claim that a belief in Jesus "bothered' me. I provided evidence that makes the claim that the historical Jesus never existed. And if it's presumed, most likely, that Jesus never existed, then arguing that he was born of a virgin is illogical.

It certainly is no skin off your nose if it gives millions comfort.

You're right, kensanIV. Truth is, I could care less.

Or even if they are right or wrong.

But that doesn't mean I shouldn't challenge and refute or debunk a bogus argument based merely on your personal faith (an opinionated belief) rather than on facts (truth).

Assume for a moment it is true.

Uh-uh, kensanIV. I never make assumptions here, so why should I make an exception in this debate? To assume means to take something for granted; a belief or an opinion taken for granted is not necessarily true.  And if truth be told, making assumptions is the root cause of the fallacious arguments presented in this forum. Since faith is unquestionable and, therefore, must be taken for granted, it is illogical to attempt to argue as trruth an assumption based merely on ones faith.

Will you be able to find another way if you are wrong on the judgment day? [sic]

That's another red herring, kensanIV. The real issue here is whether the Jesus described in the New Testament really existed, not your assuming what my fate will be on Judgement Day. (And, by the way, you don't even know with certainty that there will actually be a Judgement Day. Do you, kensanIV?) 

Again and with the magic red herring...[sic] Why DOES IT BOTHER YOU?? [sic] Obviously[,] it makes no difference except in your desire to be an ass.

And with that said, kensanIv concludes another laughable (and illogical) argument. But, of course, and not surprisingly, notice that he carefully avoided trying to refute any of the five reasons to suspect that Jesus never existed. instead, he substituted logical fallacies (red herrings) for "evidence."

red herring: something that distracts attention away from the real issue.
___Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (1997)

1965hawks proves he doesn't have a clue as to what a "red herring" is!

You lost and look foolish, hawkiepoop.  Let it go.  Do us a favour (as non-Americans such as you spell it) and stop beating a dead horse.

duke_john: What a crock from hawkie!


Let it go, hawkiepoop.  Let it go.  You lost and you look like a damned fool.

hawkiepoop anticipates his 72 virgins as he continues on his jihad against Christianity.


You lost and look foolish, hawkiepoop.  Let it go.  Do us a favour (as non-Americans such as you spell it) and stop beating a dead horse.

Having fun babbling to yourself, DUMB_john?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 
You're listening, so you're not honest even about that, hawkiepoop.

dickhead_john,

I'll be honest with you: Most of the time I don't even bother to read I read your ridiculous posts. When I do, I have a good laugh  and then move on. Just like I'm doing now. Have fun babbling to yourself, you ass-clown loser.

LOL

You haven't been honest yet, hawkiepoop.

1965hawks doesn't know what the word "honesty" means!

Hawkiepooh,  Please place me in the "Who gives a fuck what you think column."  All you do is run your fat assed mouth and shout "Red Herrings"  You add nothing but unfounded objections to any post and then attempt to scream louder than necessary.

As I have said many times before... Why does it bother you that others find comfort in their Christian belief? 

Go Away!!!!!