Follow Christ but not Christian

'Amir Alzzalam said:
re, in fact ...
Click to expand...
Yes ...

'Amir Alzzalam said:
Perhaps I stand corrected and that is fine.
Click to expand...
Well it's not perhaps, is it? But OK.

'Amir Alzzalam said:
However, none of this renders proof of the objective existence of The Son of God: Yeshua. If anything it demonstrates how Mankind is capable of inventing its heroes and villains.
Click to expand...
The point being, your claim:
"Posthumous writing means nothing only text that was actually authored by Yeshua would count as HIs philosophy."
Is nonsense. Scholarship clearly refutes you.

"However, none of this renders proof of the objective existence of The Son of God"
Not to your satisfaction, perhaps. Again, scholars largely agree that a person existed, and was crucified.

"If anything it demonstrates how Mankind is capable of inventing its heroes and villains."
Sorry, but that argument rest on a logic fallacy.
Because some historical figures without your 'proof' are fictions – Socrates, Phthagoras, Robin Hood, Bigfoot, etc. – that does not mean that all figures without such 'proof' are therefore fictions.
 
Thomas said:
Yes ...


Well it's not perhaps, is it? But OK.


The point being, your claim:
"Posthumous writing means nothing only text that was actually authored by Yeshua would count as HIs philosophy."
Is nonsense. Scholarship clearly refutes you.

"However, none of this renders proof of the objective existence of The Son of God"
Not to your satisfaction, perhaps. Again, scholars largely agree that a person existed, and was crucified.

"If anything it demonstrates how Mankind is capable of inventing its heroes and villains."
Sorry, but that argument rest on a logic fallacy.
Because some historical figures without your 'proof' are fictions – Socrates, Phthagoras, Robin Hood, Bigfoot, etc. – that does not mean that all figures without such 'proof' are therefore fictions.
Click to expand...
My bottom line is, and you can believe as you wish, that without objective proof of Yeshua's existence, I for one remain at the least agnostic though given the plethora of evidence against His existence I lean towards Him not existing.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
My bottom line is, and you can believe as you wish, that without objective proof of Yeshua's existence, I for one remain at the least agnostic though given the plethora of evidence against His existence I lean towards Him not existing.
Click to expand...
How can their be evidence against someone's existence? Isn't that the same fallacy as trying to prove a negative?
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
My bottom line is, and you can believe as you wish, that without objective proof of Yeshua's existence, I for one remain at the least agnostic though given the plethora of evidence against His existence I lean towards Him not existing.
Click to expand...
OK. Depends what we mean by 'objective proof' – suffice to say the broad consensus is that He did exist. That He did not is regarded as 'fringe'.
 
Thomas said:
OK. Depends what we mean by 'objective proof' – suffice to say the broad consensus is that He did exist. That He did not is regarded as 'fringe'.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter, people will tenaciously cling to their preferred Anachronism regardless of logic, "facts" or scholarship. To be fair, scholarship has its own issues.

However, if Jesus / Yeshua / Yashua didn't exist, then those like Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu and Mohammed didn't either by precisely the same reasoning. Neither Lucifer for that matter. So religious wisdom is all a bunch of mythological b.s. with no other purpose than to control and fleece the herds of sheeple...or at least, that is what some wish to believe and promote.

Such persons have no qualms about throwing babies out with the bathwater, and are for the most part morally vacuous.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
It doesn't matter, people will tenaciously cling to their preferred Anachronism regardless of logic, "facts" or scholarship.
Click to expand...
With an absence of evidence, are you using logic to say, the universe came into being by natural causes?
 
EricPH said:
With an absence of evidence, are you using logic to say, the universe came into being by natural causes?
Click to expand...
The Big Bang expanding universe theory is the best consensus model that makes predictions from available evidence. It is always up for discussion and open to falsification, if a better theory comes along.

It is not the only theory.

The James Webb infra red space telescope has created interesting questions, seeming to identify 'old' galaxies in the young universe, before such galaxies were supposed to have had time to form.

The BB theory doesn't actually say anything about how the BB came about, I think?
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
OK. Depends what we mean by 'objective proof' – suffice to say the broad consensus is that He did exist. That He did not is regarded as 'fringe'.
Click to expand...
Objective Proof is something quantifiable as opposed to something that cannot be independently examined, evaluated, or verified, but must be either accepted on faith or rejected.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
You're confusing proof with evidence
Click to expand...
Only pure mathematics deals in proof. The mathematical proof that 1+1=2 goes into pages.

All other sciences deal in evidence, meaning any scientific theory is falsifiable, if contradictory evidence is provided
 
RJM said:
Only pure mathematics deals in proof. The mathematical proof that 1+1=2 goes into pages.

All other sciences deal in evidence, meaning any scientific theory is falsifiable, if contradictory evidence is provided
Click to expand...
LOL . . . look, all of you, show me any objective 'evidence' that this Yeshua the Nazarane existed. The burden of proof is on all of you. With all these brilliant scientists and scholars that everyone is hiding behind surely there must be an iota of actual, hard, objective evidence.
 
RJM said:
Only pure mathematics deals in proof. The mathematical proof that 1+1=2 goes into pages.

All other sciences deal in evidence, meaning any scientific theory is falsifiable, if contradictory evidence is provided
Click to expand...
Mathematics is in no way factual there are an infinite number of mathematical truths.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
LOL . . . look, all of you, show me any objective 'evidence' that this Yeshua the Nazarane existed. The burden of proof is on all of you.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but no ...

The weight of scholarship is that He existed. Your view is fringe ... so the burden is on you. We're not hiding behind anyone ... we just accept their informed insights and opinions ... and as your benchtest would say that Pythagoras etc didn't exist ... it looks flimsy.
 
Thomas said:
Nice try, but no ...

The weight of scholarship is that He existed. Your view is fringe ... so the burden is on you. We're not hiding behind anyone ... we just accept their informed insights and opinions ... and as your benchtest would say that Pythagoras etc didn't exist ... it looks flimsy.
Click to expand...
What is flimsy is that anyone would accept a fact when there are no facts . . . why bring up all these historical figures as if I somehow accept their objective existence? LOL, that's just an attempt at misdirection. No, the burden of proof lies on anyone who states that Yeshua objectively existed, it's as simple as that. Go gather all your Christian champions of science and let's see the evidence.

Of which I might point out . . . NO ONE HAS YET! (I wonder why that is?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top