30 verses of Bible say " Jesus did not die on the Cross".

[badger]

It's fine, it's not required. But it seems a flimsy platform from which to launch a crusade against the Christian beliefs and values of a-third of the population of the planet, based upon just your own study of 'their' scriptures?

I would not pursue this, except that the crusade appears to continue?

Individual investigation before institutional indoctrination.
Historical Jesus students often wish to use sections away from Christianity sections, so that they DO NOT launch crusades against Christians.

 

[RJM]

Individual investigation before institutional indoctrination.
Historical Jesus students often wish to use sections away from Christianity sections, so that they DO NOT launch crusades against Christians.

However the reason for posting theses about the death on the cross and Christ as a spiritual figure on a faith based website as opposed to an historical website, would be to engage with 'believers' on the subject? And engagement would involve taking account of responses and rebuttals?

The idea is thoroughly debunked throughout this thread, point by point. It is simply wrong.

 

[badger]

However the reason for posting theses about the death on the cross and Christ as a spiritual figure on a faith based website as opposed to an historical website, would be to engage with 'believers' on the subject? And engagement would involve taking account of responses and rebuttals?

The idea is thoroughly debunked throughout this thread, point by point. It is simply wrong.

There you are.....!
Somebody posted up a thread, and you feel that it's proposal was thoroughly debunked.......... now what could be bad about that?

EDIT: And everybody that I read on this thread does believe in Jesus.

 

[RJM]

There you are.....!
Somebody posted up a thread, and you feel that it's proposal was thoroughly debunked.......... now what could be bad about that?

EDIT: And everybody that I read on this thread does believe in Jesus.

There are 21 pages, of thorough debunking, lol

 

[RJM]

Do you discuss Abrahamic beliefs with Abrahamics themselves, or is it all based on what you think they believe gathered from your own private Bible studies? You do not seem to accept the validity of even listening to what other experts like Bart Ehrman have to say, although there are video (podcast) lectures by Ehrman and others easily available, including several on this site.

What is your reaction to the point by point rebuttals in this thread?

 

[badger]

There are 21 pages, of thorough debunking, lol

When I first came to Interfaith I asked you why outsiders are allowed to post aggressive threads up on religions which they don't follow.
Speaking for myself, I would prefer never to post my ideas up on sections which I don't follow myself.
I was told (in so many words) that a 'debating section' of some kind was unsuitable for Interfaith.

This thread, 'Jesus did not die on the Cross' is an Islamic belief, and it might possibly have been moved to its correct 'Islamic' section for further conversation. That's easy........ imo.

 

[RJM]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, strong evidence at least. This thread appears to consist of inventive speculation with the object of endorsing a predetermined theory (which @badger shares) by selecting out-of-context passages, ignoring those to the contrary

And rebuttals are simply ignored ...

 

[badger]

Do you discuss Abrahamic beliefs with Abrahamics themselves, or is it all based on what you think they believe gathered from your own private Bible studies?

I converse with anybody and always try to acknowledge their beliefs. After all, I acknowledged yours once and was told not to tell you what you believe; remember? You had previously written that you are a Catholic. Sometimes we cannot win.

You do not seem to accept the validity of even listening to what other experts like Bart Ehrman have to say, although there are video (podcast) lectures by Ehrman and others easily available, including several on this site.

I acknowledge and would listen to experts, but religion is a very inexact field imo.
For example, do you take notice of Prof Carrier the 'expert' who proposes that the Gospels are fictions drawn from the writings of Paul and others?
I listen to people.... and debate with them....let Ehrman come to Interfaith and write about his beliefs..... I would converse with him then.

What is your reaction to the point by point rebuttals in this thread?

I react to what I hear, see, and read.......

If this Islamic belief had been acknowledged and popped in to the Islamic section, that would have been exactly correct in my opinion.

 

[badger]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, strong evidence at least. This thread appears to consist of inventive speculation with the object of endorsing a predetermined theory (which @badger shares) by selecting out-of-context passages, ignoring those to the contrary

And rebuttals are simply ignored ...

It is an Islamic belief, and all that would be needed is to acknowledge the beliefs of the OP and explain that it is in the wrong section, it needed to go in to Islamic section. imo.

What's so hard about that?
Can you acknowledge the beliefs of others?

 

[RJM]

It is an Islamic belief, and all that would be needed is to acknowledge the beliefs of the OP and explain that it is in the wrong section, it needed to go in to Islamic section. imo.

What's so hard about that?
Can you acknowledge the beliefs of others?

@Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi has also started threads in the Islam forums attempting to use to Quran to justify that Jesus died in India. My knowledge of the Quran consists in having read it just once, I am not competent to participate there -- unlike here in the Christian forums, where the Bible is being quoted

 

[badger]

@Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi has also started threads in the Islam forums attempting to use to Quran to justify that Jesus died in India. My knowledge of the Quran consists in having read it just once, I am not competent to participate there -- unlike here in the Christian forums, where the Bible is being quoted

So he got that right, didn't he? He posted his proposals in the Islamic section! Isn't that correct?
He could have posted this thread in the Islamic section....it's an Islamic belief.
Easy.

 

[RJM]

Can you acknowledge the beliefs of others?

I do. But where the New Testament is being quoted as 'evidence' I reserve the right to correct cherry-picking and so on ...

 

[RJM]

So he got that right, didn't he? He posted his proposals in the Islamic section! Isn't that correct?
He could have posted this thread in the Islamic section....it's an Islamic belief.
Easy.

There would have been very little response because most Muslims' knowledge of the NT is as thin as that of most Christians' knowledge of the Quran.

Nor is it just an Islamic belief, obviously

 

[badger]

I do. But wheret he New Testament us being used as 'evidence' I reserve the right to correct cherry-picking and so on ...

Muhammad quoted the NT many times.
All that was needed in this thread was for the bosses to explain that it needed to go in the Islamic section.

 

[RJM]

Muhammad quoted the NT many times.
All that was needed in this thread was for the bosses to explain that it needed to go in the Islamic section.

Nonsense show me where Muhammad (pbuh) quoted the NT many times. Do you mean he mentioned Jesus many times? That's different.

What's this got to do with 'bosses' or you going to the Islamic section? You just ignore anything that doesn't fit your theory. I am asking for your reaction to the rebuttals in this thread. Asking you and anyone else ....

 

[badger]

There would have been very little response because most Muslims' knowledge of the NT is as thin as that of most Christians' knowledge of the Quran.

....and thus it would have been a rather small thread. Easy.
I posted a thread in the Islamic section which proposed that some Muslim parents and madrassas can be very hard on their children if they cannot learn the Qurun by heart...... I mentioned that the Muslim parents of Hafiz children get automatic entry in to heaven, and asked if this might cause some parents to push their kids too hard. (Ten years ago a Welsh Muslim couple beat their child so badly that he died, and so burned down their house in attempt to hide the cause of death. The mother admitted later that they had been desperate for their child to be hafiz)

The thread got no answers....... nor acknowledgements.

Nor is it just an Islamic belief, obviously

So it could go in to a debating section, maybe..... if there was one. But Christians need not have been subjected to even reading it.
Easy. imo

 

[RJM]

So it could go in to a debating section, maybe..... if there was one. But Christians need not have been subjected to even re

But there isn't, because the Christians* here are reasonable people able to discuss their beliefs with atheists and others. However it is reasonable to engage and respond to the points and rebuttals and explanations they provide -- not just ignore them? That's proselytizing ...

*and most others here

 

[badger]

But there isn't, because the Christians* here are reasonable people able to discuss their beliefs with atheists and others. However it is reasonable to engage and respond to the points and rebuttals and explanations they provide -- not just ignore them? That's proselytizing ...

*and most others here

I expect that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and most others are also reasonable people and can discuss their beliefs with others. What happened on this thread that the 'points and rebuttals and explanations' could responded to, to the extent of 21 pages.

Proselytising...... That's banned, I think..... yes?

Presumably Christians can proselytise on the Christian section, for example I've seen videos where Prof Ehrman promotes Christianity.... so if Threads that proselytise are popped in to their own sections that might be ok?

For example:- If a Satanist would post a thread up in the Islamic section, claiming that 'Satan is the King and wonderful' (or whatever), then the bosses would just need to pop that thread in to the Satanist section.

This can be easy, imo.

 

[RJM]

What happened on this thread that the 'points and rebuttals and explanations' could responded to, to the extent of 21 pages.

Proselytising...... That's banned, I

What on earth are you trying to say? The points are laid down as 'proof', they are then rebutted, then the rebuttals are ignored and the original points repeated.

Presumably Christians can proselytise on the Christian section, for example I've seen videos where Prof Ehrman promotes Christianity.... so if Threads that proselytise are popped in to their own sections that might be ok?

No proselytizing on this website. To say Ehrman proselytizes Christianity is just ridiculous.

For example:- If a Satanist would post a thread up in the Islamic section, claiming that 'Satan is the King and wonderful' (or whatever), then the bosses would just need to pop that thread in to the Satanist section.

Not if he was using Quran quotations to back him up

At some point it is necessary to read the points and rebuttals made in a thread before making judgements about what it contains ...

 

[RJM]

For example, do you take notice of Prof Carrier the 'expert' who proposes that

Yes. I disagree with him. You asked me before. Why do you not just address and respond to the rebuttals made in this thread against the theory that the NT supports the argument Jesus did not die on the cross?