You are correct. Unlike Jesus, the existence of Mohammad is confirmed by contemporaneous sources.
was jezus nailed to the cross with 30 nails
- Thread starter orcot
- Start date
You are correct. Unlike Jesus, the existence of Mohammad is confirmed by contemporaneous sources.
Jesus allowed himself to be at the mercy of the atheists, pagans and the religious polititians trying to maintain their positions of power and influence. Do you think people, such as these, are capable of a torture, such as nailing someone to the cross after whipping him?
Part of what made Jesus's torture effective was he did not resist, but allowed everyone to see the true colors of the wild dogs. People could see the nice guy trying to do good. The wild dogs, seem to smell this, and become like animals; animal standard.
Even in this discussion, protege of the wild dogs, still attack the victim of the nailing, but never mention those who are capable of this. It is like denying the holocost, so those who did it, don't have to accept any responsibility.
Let us talk about the wild dogs and see weather modern versions of this would do the same thing if it was legal.
Part of what made Jesus's torture effective was he did not resist, but allowed everyone to see the true colors of the wild dogs. People could see the nice guy trying to do good. The wild dogs, seem to smell this, and become like animals; animal standard.
Even in this discussion, protege of the wild dogs, still attack the victim of the nailing, but never mention those who are capable of this. It is like denying the holocost, so those who did it, don't have to accept any responsibility.
Let us talk about the wild dogs and see weather modern versions of this would do the same thing if it was legal.
We don't know that he didn't resist. In any case, the penalty in the OT for blasphemy is death.
Yes let's give atheists the blame for killing the person that might or might not have lived. How many people do you think were killed in the name of atheism?
And how many in the name of religion?
I would really like to see a peer reviewed archeological citation for this. Obviously Historically such research would be of great interest to biblical/theological scholars.
If there was no Mohammad, we really need a rethink about what happened back then that led to (hundred of years later) a culture of Islam.
It's well known that Mohammad probably lived, I mean he went around killing so many people they were bound to remember.
haha... you know better
*************
M*W: And what "contemporary records" and "scholars" might these be?
Jesus didn't die on the cross, you think he would be killed by a bunch of atheist jews? the messiah?
He is jesus not some panzy hippy
He is jesus not some panzy hippy
You don't think Jesus was a real person?
I tend to think so, but there is hardly any evidence for it. Would it matter? If we found the body of Jesus, would Christians all over the world start raping and murdering?
Not more than they already are, I guess.
Gday,
In fact, there is a great deal of doubt.
The Jesus Myth theory is becoming increasingly popular and discussed. But instead of producing evidence for a historical Jesus we just get endless repeats of this empty claim.
Scholar A : "Yes, no-one doubts Jesus existed - just ask scholar B"
Scholar B : "Yes, Jesus existed, Scholar C has proved it"
Scholar C : "Oh yes, scholars all know Jesus existed, just check with Scholar A for the evidence"
But the only "evidence" ever actually produced amounts to :
* Christian claims from long after the alleged events
* Roman writers from long after who repeat Christian claims
* Josephus - a forged or corrupted passage
The alleged "evidence" for Jesus is weak as water - late, corrupt, religious claims and anonymous books.
But NOT ONE Christians ever claimed to have met a historical Jesus (apart from the latest, most obviously forged book in the whole NT - 2 Peter.)
Wrong.
There are NO contemporary records of Jesus.
None. (But that doesn't stop believes from repeating this totally false claim.)
Instead there are Roman writers who LATER mention Christian beliefs. Not records at all.
99% of those scholars are Christians, or work in a Christian establishment - their reputation, friends, or faith all depend on them believing.
Jesus was as real as Osiris or Bacchus or Krishna or Hercules or Xenu.
Kapyong
In fact, there is a great deal of doubt.
The Jesus Myth theory is becoming increasingly popular and discussed. But instead of producing evidence for a historical Jesus we just get endless repeats of this empty claim.
Scholar A : "Yes, no-one doubts Jesus existed - just ask scholar B"
Scholar B : "Yes, Jesus existed, Scholar C has proved it"
Scholar C : "Oh yes, scholars all know Jesus existed, just check with Scholar A for the evidence"
But the only "evidence" ever actually produced amounts to :
* Christian claims from long after the alleged events
* Roman writers from long after who repeat Christian claims
* Josephus - a forged or corrupted passage
The alleged "evidence" for Jesus is weak as water - late, corrupt, religious claims and anonymous books.
But NOT ONE Christians ever claimed to have met a historical Jesus (apart from the latest, most obviously forged book in the whole NT - 2 Peter.)
Wrong.
There are NO contemporary records of Jesus.
None. (But that doesn't stop believes from repeating this totally false claim.)
Instead there are Roman writers who LATER mention Christian beliefs. Not records at all.
99% of those scholars are Christians, or work in a Christian establishment - their reputation, friends, or faith all depend on them believing.
Jesus was as real as Osiris or Bacchus or Krishna or Hercules or Xenu.
Kapyong
Gday,
So, you haven't actually checked the alleged 'evidence' ?
So, when you DO hear of historians casting doubt, you'll change you mind, right?
Here is a list showing that many historians have cast serious doubt on the existence of Jesus :
C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours
T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth
Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ
Contemporary historian Richard Carrier has doubted Jesus' existence.
Earl Doherty is the premier MJer of the day - if you actually want to learn what the main MJ theory actually says, I would suggest reading Doherty's latest book :
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Neither-God-Case-Mythical/dp/0968925928
His web site has much to read too :
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/
Contemporary historian G.A. Wells initially argued against a HJ, but after copping flack from believers, he has changed his tune somewhat.
So now that you HAVE heard of historians who cast serious doubt on the existence of Jesus, I expect you'll want to check the arguments for yourself now, right?
When the Gospel stories finally became known to the wider community in mid-late 2nd century, Jews and pagans did everything they could to discredit Jesus. But people then were much more gullible - they believed in all sorts of gods and beings and god-men. There was no scepticism about the existence of any of them - that's why no-one argued Jesus didn't exist - because no-one argued that ANY god-man didn't exist. There was NO tradition of scepticism then.
Anyway - the Gospels did not become widely known until mid 2nd century - after TWO wars with the Romans, after the Temple was destroyed, after Judea was erased from the map, after several generations, after most of the Jews had been killed or dispersed. HOW could anyone then know whether Jesus existed long long before?
BUT -
what we DO see is all sorts of attacks and criticisms of Jesus when the stories become known. The Jews did everything they could to discredit Jesus - they said he :
* was a bastard
* was conceived during menstruation
* that he practiced black magic
* that he worshipped a brick bat
* that he was stoned to death in Lydda
* that he now spends eternity in a vat of boiling shit.
* that he stole magic from Egypt by secreting a scroll in his thigh so he wouldn't forget the magic word when the magic memory-erasing dog barked at him on the way out
Is THAT somehow confirmation of a historical Jesus?
Of course not.
It's Jews trying every trick they can to discredit Jesus.
And it shows that no-one, not even the Jews, ever knew anything about a historical Jesus. It's all stories from long after the alleged events.
How would you know?
You said you hadn't checked for yourself.
Instead, you have heard people SAY it's strong - AND you have managed to competely AVOID contact with anyone saying otherwise. You are making a decision on completely ONE-sided information.
See - this is the problematic pattern we see endlessy repeated about HJ.
Everyone believes that Jesus exists -
because
everyone believes that Jesus exists!
This BELIEF is extremely strong - because it's built in to our culture - Jesus is a house-hold name, the most recognisable name in Western Society.
But - the ACTUAL evidence is NOT strong at all.
So we get endless repeats of threads like this :
"The evidence for Jesus is strong"
Really? have you checked?
"Well, no actually, but everyone believes it, so I do too"
Kapyong
So, you haven't actually checked the alleged 'evidence' ?
So, when you DO hear of historians casting doubt, you'll change you mind, right?
Here is a list showing that many historians have cast serious doubt on the existence of Jesus :
C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours
T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth
Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ
Contemporary historian Richard Carrier has doubted Jesus' existence.
Earl Doherty is the premier MJer of the day - if you actually want to learn what the main MJ theory actually says, I would suggest reading Doherty's latest book :
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Neither-God-Case-Mythical/dp/0968925928
His web site has much to read too :
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/
Contemporary historian G.A. Wells initially argued against a HJ, but after copping flack from believers, he has changed his tune somewhat.
So now that you HAVE heard of historians who cast serious doubt on the existence of Jesus, I expect you'll want to check the arguments for yourself now, right?
When the Gospel stories finally became known to the wider community in mid-late 2nd century, Jews and pagans did everything they could to discredit Jesus. But people then were much more gullible - they believed in all sorts of gods and beings and god-men. There was no scepticism about the existence of any of them - that's why no-one argued Jesus didn't exist - because no-one argued that ANY god-man didn't exist. There was NO tradition of scepticism then.
Anyway - the Gospels did not become widely known until mid 2nd century - after TWO wars with the Romans, after the Temple was destroyed, after Judea was erased from the map, after several generations, after most of the Jews had been killed or dispersed. HOW could anyone then know whether Jesus existed long long before?
BUT -
what we DO see is all sorts of attacks and criticisms of Jesus when the stories become known. The Jews did everything they could to discredit Jesus - they said he :
* was a bastard
* was conceived during menstruation
* that he practiced black magic
* that he worshipped a brick bat
* that he was stoned to death in Lydda
* that he now spends eternity in a vat of boiling shit.
* that he stole magic from Egypt by secreting a scroll in his thigh so he wouldn't forget the magic word when the magic memory-erasing dog barked at him on the way out
Is THAT somehow confirmation of a historical Jesus?
Of course not.
It's Jews trying every trick they can to discredit Jesus.
And it shows that no-one, not even the Jews, ever knew anything about a historical Jesus. It's all stories from long after the alleged events.
How would you know?
You said you hadn't checked for yourself.
Instead, you have heard people SAY it's strong - AND you have managed to competely AVOID contact with anyone saying otherwise. You are making a decision on completely ONE-sided information.
See - this is the problematic pattern we see endlessy repeated about HJ.
Everyone believes that Jesus exists -
because
everyone believes that Jesus exists!
This BELIEF is extremely strong - because it's built in to our culture - Jesus is a house-hold name, the most recognisable name in Western Society.
But - the ACTUAL evidence is NOT strong at all.
So we get endless repeats of threads like this :
"The evidence for Jesus is strong"
Really? have you checked?
"Well, no actually, but everyone believes it, so I do too"
Kapyong
Gday,
It is correct.
Michael claimed there was no contemporaty evidence for Mohamed.
He is correct. There is no contemporary historical evidence for Mohamed. You didn't cite any. So why do you think his claim is wrong?
Because you BELIEVE.
Of course, Mohamed is widely considered historical, but it is NOT 100% certain - there is indeed a minority view that he did not exist.
We can guess that you are a Muslim, or from a Muslim background.
People can quite happily accept that Krishna was a myth - unless they are a Hindu.
People can quite happily accept that Xenu was a myth - unless they are a Scientologist.
People can quite happily accept that The Masters are a myth - unless they are a Theosophist.
People can quite happily accept that the angel Moroni was a myth - unless they are a Mormon.
People can quite happily accept that Jesus was a myth - unless they are a Christian.
Western culture is Christian - so we believe in Jesus.
But it's not because of history. It's the dead weight of 2 millenia of church hegemony. For centuries even doubting Jesus meant risking being burned at the stake.
Kapyong
It is correct.
Michael claimed there was no contemporaty evidence for Mohamed.
He is correct. There is no contemporary historical evidence for Mohamed. You didn't cite any. So why do you think his claim is wrong?
Because you BELIEVE.
Of course, Mohamed is widely considered historical, but it is NOT 100% certain - there is indeed a minority view that he did not exist.
We can guess that you are a Muslim, or from a Muslim background.
People can quite happily accept that Krishna was a myth - unless they are a Hindu.
People can quite happily accept that Xenu was a myth - unless they are a Scientologist.
People can quite happily accept that The Masters are a myth - unless they are a Theosophist.
People can quite happily accept that the angel Moroni was a myth - unless they are a Mormon.
People can quite happily accept that Jesus was a myth - unless they are a Christian.
Western culture is Christian - so we believe in Jesus.
But it's not because of history. It's the dead weight of 2 millenia of church hegemony. For centuries even doubting Jesus meant risking being burned at the stake.
Kapyong
Gday,
No it isn't.
Which is why you failed to cite any.
That's several posters insisting we have contemporary evidence for Mohamed - but no actual EVIDENCE.
It's amazing how people are prepared to make such bold claims without checking the facts.
It's just like Jesus.
Many people BELIEVE.
But few are interested in checking the facts.
Kapyong
No it isn't.
Which is why you failed to cite any.
That's several posters insisting we have contemporary evidence for Mohamed - but no actual EVIDENCE.
It's amazing how people are prepared to make such bold claims without checking the facts.
It's just like Jesus.
Many people BELIEVE.
But few are interested in checking the facts.
Kapyong
There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
The difference is, few people care whether Lao Tzu or Socrates really existed, their words are just as valuable.