Jack the Bodiless

And neither did Jesus.

But followers of both claim that they did.
Baloney.
Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, as far as we can tell. The author of the gospel of John didn't think so, and the Nativity is an obvious fabrication.

You accept all this because it is Christian doctrine, not because of evidence to support it.
Give examples. The so-called "prophecies" have been debunked.
Are you saying that the 4 billion people who do NOT believe in God and Jesus are unreasonable and insane?

Lobstrosity

And are you saying that the four billion non-Christians who don't believe in Jesus are unreasonable and insane? Maybe Christians are too closed-minded to see the truth that is blatantly obvious to everyone else. Come now, don't commit the fallacy of belief; it clearly won't get you anywhere.

Gooch's dad

Circular argument. "I don't believe in the claims of Jesus because I believe Christianity to be a false religion". See how easy that is?

Since the Qur'an is from Mohammed himself, and not disciples who would be less likely to make someone other than themselves look good, Mohammed doesn't have any credibility.

Huh? Come again? Jesus was supposed to be GOD, right? And yet he never wrote down a damned thing, nor is he recorded as ever telling his disciples to write down a word. And they didn't. The accounts we have are not from any actual disciples of Jesus, they are from disciples of the disciples, at best.

Mohammed enjoyed multiple wives and sex, hence why the Islamic paradise is so because he wanted it to be that way.

And Jesus was obviously a 1st century Jewish preacher, who didn't understand that the Old Testament stories about Adam and Eve, and Jonah, and Noah, were myths. He thought that washing your hands before meals wasn't important, because he had no clue about bacteria and viruses. He chose this Jewish practice, out of hundreds, to discredit, and ended up helping cause 1000 years of European plagues, because the medieval Christians were taught by Jesus that washing their hands before eating wasn't important.

Mohammed also never fulfilled any prophecies.

And other than being born of a young woman, Jesus didn't fulfill any either.


Jesus had no self satisfying agenda, his purpose was save people and teach love and peace.

Good teachings, those. Wise men such as Buddha and many others have taught such ideals for thousands of years.

Jesus filled the role of what one would expect a righteous, perfect, holy God to be like.

By not actually writing anything down for posterity? By getting himself killed for insurrection? Early Christian fathers fought this battle for centuries, inventing the doctrine of atonement to justify how the founder of their faith was a crucified criminal. And it still makes no sense whatsoever. Blood sacrifice? How much more primitive and barbaric can you get?


And Jesus Christ the person is a historical fact. There is no question of whether the person himself existed. He was as real as Ceasar and Pontius Pilate. Whether he was God or not is a different story. But this Jesus person we talk about was not a myth in terms of existing. Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth, he had parents, brothers, and "friends". It is a fact.

I'm not sure I'd call it a fact, but I do tend to think that Jesus existed. No, he wasn't born in Bethlehem, he was born in Nazareth. That's why he was called Jesus of Nazareth. There was no census, that story is an invention. But yeah, Jesus existed. Was he the incarnation of the creator of the universe? No. That is quite clear.

Magus55

Sorry Jack, i forgot your opinions carry more weight than historians and archaeologists, how silly of me.


Gooch's Dad:

If the Old Testament stories were a myth, how was Jesus born and die the exact same way and place that was stated a 1000 years earlier?

Actually he did.

Here is some archaeological statements and nonbibilical accounts that prove the accuracy of the Bible and its historicity.

Archaeologists studying ancient civilizations by uncovering ruins and examining artifacts, are with increasing success confirming the accuracy of the Biblical texts. Sir William Ramsey's vindication of Luke's writings is a classic example.[2] The findings of archaeology have in fact reversed the opinions of a number of former skeptics. Among these is the scholar Dr. William F. Albright, who writes:


"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."[3]

Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in 70 A.D.
Also, the recent recovery of a Roman census similar to the one in Luke 2:1f, and the historical confirmation of his "synchronism"[5] in Luke 3:1f, underscores the care Luke took in writing his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4).

[Read more about archaeological discoveries that confirm the Bible's accuracy.]

Critics of Luke's Gospel often retreat into non-verifiable and subjective opinions, but they have not overthrown Luke's historical confirmations.[6] By extension, the other two "Synoptic"[7] Gospels of Matthew and Mark, painting essentially similar portraits of Jesus' ministry, are also trustworthy accounts of his life.

Additionally, outside the Bible, Jesus is also mentioned by his near-contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile) point to Jesus' existence, including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud. Gary Habermas has cited a total of 39 ancient extra-Biblical sources, including 17 non-Christian, that witness from outside the New Testament to over 100 details of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.[8]

Taken from
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html

fishbulb

Where to start...

This is called "begging the question." Islam is based on the claims of Mohammed. Saying you don't believe in one is the same as saying you don't believe in the other. What you don't say is *why* you don't believe in them. What *facts* can you offer as evidence that Christianity is right and Islam is wrong?

That is an ad hominem argument. The validity of an argument has nothing to do with the person making it and everything to do with the facts and arguments brought forth as evidence. It is true that Mohammed has little credibility because he cannot back up any of his words with verifiable evidence. But this is also true of the Gospel writers.

This is another kind of ad hominem argument. Mohammed, allegedly, lived a life that, in your opinion, was sinful, so he must also not have been God's prophet. Funny, a lot of Muslims would probably say the same thing about many Christian prophets.

And what makes you think that Mohammed thought that he could create a paradise in heaven tailored to his needs just by telling people on Earth that it existed? That would be a really neat power to have.

Are you saying that Jesus found no satisfaction in saving people and teaching love and peace? I would. But then, I'm just an immoral atheist.

Possible ulterior motive is not evidence that one's argument is false. But if you do consider ulterior motives in evaluating the truthfulness of someone -- always a difficult task -- you must take into account both the selfish-seeming motives and the altruistic-seeming motives. In fact, doesn't Christianity have a venerable history of pious fraud: people fabricating evidence in order to help people believe the truth?

He filled the role of what *you* would expect a righteous, perfect, holy God to be like. Do not generalize and attribute your expectations to everyone. A lot of people believe that the actions attributed to Jesus are anything but righteous (well, self-righteous, maybe), perfect and holy.

And ask yourself this: why would you expect such a being to act this way? Because it says so in the Bible? Well, then, of course Jesus measures up nicely; the Bible, after all, is all *about him.*

What you're really saying is, Jesus filled the role of what you would expect of Jesus.

Also begging the question. Can't you see how circular this is? You start by assuming that the God of the Bible is the true God and then use that assumption to assert that Mohammed was a prophet of a false god. If you were to assume that Mohammed was a true prophet of God, then you would conclude that a holy, righteous god did indeed have a thing for post-mortem rumpy pumpy.

Saying so doesn't make it so. If you have a conclusive case to make for the historical existence of Jesus, there's probably a professorship in it for you.

Gooch's dad

Magus, give us solid examples of the Old Testament prophecies that you think Jesus fulfilled. We've been around and around on this issue already. I've explained to you that you can get the same results, i.e. the appearance of 'fulfilled prophecy' by writing about a supposed event and making it 'fit' to some supposed prophecy.

YOU need to justify the reliability of the NT accounts of the supposed prophecy fulfillment. Yes, the NT writers have some geographic details correct, especially Luke. But Luke could have achieved the same results by using Josephus' writings about the Jewish Wars to add the details. In fact, Luke's supposed 'prophecy' of Jesus about the destruction of Jerusalem reads almost exactly like Josephus account of the event, down to the description of embankments.

Gone With the Wind contains many sound geographic references, too--does that make it non-fiction?

Can you get this through your head, Magus? I'm really getting sick of you bringing this up again and again, as if we haven't utterly destroyed your claims. The last time I went through this with you, your only response was, "that's a lame argument". WTF? Is that supposed to be an actual refutation?

Magus, read this very carefullly: We don't have eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. You got that?

Magus55

Here is a list and explanation of a few of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled and the ones reguarding his birth and death are not fakeable.

http://www.carm.org/bible/prophecy.htm

Born of a Virgin
Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Matt. 1:18,25, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary...was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit... But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

Born at Bethlehem
Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Matt. 2:1, "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem."



His side pierced
Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one mourns for an only son."

John 19:34, "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

Rejected by His own people
Isaiah 53:3, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him."
John 7:48, "Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him?"

And i hate to break it to you, but most of the disciples weren't highly educated. There is no possible way they could have made all of the Bible up with such historical accuracy and getting every single prophecy from 1000 years earlier correct. The Bible us WAY too complex and influencial to have been completely fabricated. If you actually believe Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke got together and made the entire New Testament up, i would question your reason and logic and common sense.

Also on the note of the prophecy of crucifixion, King David wrote in Psalm 22 describing in detail how Jesus would die and that his clothes would be stolen. He said all this 1000 years before Jesus was even born and before Crucifixion was even invented. And how could Jesus read the Old Testament, and make Rome kill him and take his clothes as was described 1000 years earlier? How you can seriously question that is beyond me and that is why i consider many strong atheists to be unreasonable. Just you negate everything just because its based on the supernatural.

Gooch's dad

DAMNIT, Magus, didn't you understand? The stories were written to add those details IN!!!

In other words, you can't actually show that Jesus had his side pierced. You can't show he was born in Bethlehem. You can't show anything about those claims, because you have stories that give every appearance of having been written to ADD those details. Got it?

The fact that Matthew has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on TWO donkeys is a smoking gun, that the writer simply didn't understand the supposed prophecy he was shoehorning into his story. The OT passage about a "donkey, and a foal of a donkey" was using a common Hebrew double description of a single event or thing. So the writer of Matthew (whoever that was) had Jesus telling his disciples to get TWO animals, they put their cloaks on BOTH animals, and Jesus got on THEM. Smoking gun. Guilty as charged, the writer was making stuff up.

Jack the Bodiless

Magus:

The thread Magus55: take the Prophecy Challenge! is still waiting for you. So far, the number of successful Biblical prophecies stands at zero.
"Historians and archaeologists" don't generally believe that the Bible is miraculously accurate. In fact, they know that it is not.
Easy. He wasn't.

Now prove that he WAS.
Followed by an article in which certain places mentioned in the Bible have been found, but NO PROPHECIES have been confirmed.

Do you seriously believe that we consider all PLACES mentioned in the Bible to be entirely fictional?

Why didn't you mention that the city of Jerusalem exists? Maybe because your fallacy would then be too obvious?

Gooch's dad

GRRRRR!!!!! The disciples didn't WRITE the gospels!! Mark was written by a disciple of Peter, we are told by Eusebius 300 years later (who might have a quote of Papias claiming that, but we don't have Papias' writings anymore). Matthew and Luke both are based at least partway on Mark, and why the heck would an eyewitness use the writings of a non-eyewitness as a source? And Luke even says that he isn't an eyewitness.

John is written in the mid-90's by a well-educated Roman Christian, writing in excellent Greek. He may have based some of his writing on an earlier 'signs' gospel, but it is heavily embroidered. And it is certainly not an eyewitness account--having Jesus talk about 'eat my body and drink my blood' while in a synagogue is just plain silly. He would have been stoned on the spot.

Nice try, but you have no case.