Yeshua Never Existed . . . Change my Mind

'Amir Alzzalam said:
Ok so . . . I believe there hasn't been adequate evidence brought forth that proves Yeshua physically existed.
However, that does NOT in any way prove he didn't exist, I'm not beyond admitting that.
Click to expand...
Quite. As discussed elsewhere, the same can be said of a lot of people in antiquity.

So we've made some progress, then.

'Amir Alzzalam said:
For argument's sake let's say Yeshua did exist during the time he was supposed to
I don't see any evidence that would make him the Son of Yahweh, or any kind of Divine Being, or Messiah as claimed he was/is.
Change My Mind
Click to expand...
LOL, No.

(For believers here, I would refer to St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae, FP, Q1, a8 Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument? As to why I wouldn't bother trying.)

I am mindful of:
“Belief or Nonbelief”, an exchange of letters between two intellectual heavyweights, both no longer with us: Umberto Eco (athiest) and Carlo Maria Martini (Catholic cardinal of Milan).

A review of this short book said:
"They are relentless in a search for common ground but also more than willing to respectfully disagree. In the end, this is the gift of this slim book, that two people can disagree with each other, tolerate the other’s point of view (without watering down his own) and remain coherent. In an age of talk radio’s ugly rejoinders and the weak-kneed compromise we all tend toward in order to get along, this robust exchange is a joy to read."

The lack of respect and degree of intolerance on your part I find sadly telling ... your 'ugly rejoinders' are unwelcome, unnecessary, and do nothing but reflect poorly on yourself.
 
wil said:
And you are trying to claim the high road by name calling?
Click to expand...
No. @'Amir Alzzalam did not call @moralorel any names. The word that drew the report was not addressed in a personal sense -- just a general expletive contained in a phrase that drew the complaint ...

My apology for the confusion
 
Last edited:
If posters avoid bad words, there won't be reports, and the life of volunteer mods will be easier, lol
 
Thomas said:
Quite. As discussed elsewhere, the same can be said of a lot of people in antiquity.

So we've made some progress, then.


LOL, No.

(For believers here, I would refer to St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae, FP, Q1, a8 Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument? As to why I wouldn't bother trying.)

I am mindful of:
“Belief or Nonbelief”, an exchange of letters between two intellectual heavyweights, both no longer with us: Umberto Eco (athiest) and Carlo Maria Martini (Catholic cardinal of Milan).

A review of this short book said:
"They are relentless in a search for common ground but also more than willing to respectfully disagree. In the end, this is the gift of this slim book, that two people can disagree with each other, tolerate the other’s point of view (without watering down his own) and remain coherent. In an age of talk radio’s ugly rejoinders and the weak-kneed compromise we all tend toward in order to get along, this robust exchange is a joy to read."

The lack of respect and degree of intolerance on your part I find sadly telling ... your 'ugly rejoinders' are unwelcome, unnecessary, and do nothing but reflect poorly on yourself.
Click to expand...
What are we in 2nd grade here? LOL
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
What are we in 2nd grade here? LOL
Click to expand...
Oh dear, such a reasoned and intelligent response. Don't know what grade you think I'm in chum, but it's way above your level of engagement.

And as this is the Abrahamic Board, I think you'll find you're the troll round here.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
Was that your intention? Go troll someone else . . .
Click to expand...
Not at all. I've been trying to have a mature conversation. You have been dishing out insults and being rude. I think everyone here, aside from you, would agree that I am far from being a troll.
 
moralorel said:
Not at all. I've been trying to have a mature conversation. You have been dishing out insults and being rude. I think everyone here, aside from you, would agree that I am far from being a troll.
Click to expand...
Go read your antagonistic replies . . .
In any case what have you to say about my Original Post?
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
Go read your antagonistic replies . . .
In any case what have you to say about my Original Post?
Click to expand...
Antagonistic? Like what? Like dishing out insults instead of answering questions? Oh wait, that was you. Not liking my answers so you result to violating the forum standards and to name calling? What have I done that was antagonistic? I tend to put a mirror in front of people and they hate that. Looks like you just don't like that.

I DID comment on your original post. You complained that your illogical statements didn't count because they weren't on this thread. I asked how that logically makes any sense and you resorted to insults.

It's okay. When people resort to insults they are always logical and correct. Always.
 
There is hardly any proof about history if you discard all sources. You discard all Christian sources but you accept the sources that talk of other people who claimed to be the Messiah although they are very sparse.

Why should the authors of the N.T. have followed the teachings of someone who didn't even exist?
Same, why should there have been Muslim following someone who didn't exist? The traditions about them comes from those who were with them at their side. Others would not have noticed them. And most of those who did, could not write, and there are no original writings left from that time; only those that were copied over generations survived.
There were probably more than 100 million people living in the world in the time of Jesus. How many have left traces that make sure they existed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
'Amir Alzzalam said:
LMFAO!
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” (Matthew 10:21)

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. (Matthew 11:20)

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. (Matthew 15:4-7)

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. (Matthew 19:29)

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. (Mark 4:25)

Jesus okays beating slaves. (Luke 12:47)


Yeshua's family and contemporaries regarded him as delusional, possessed by demons, or insane.


— John 10:19–20
Click to expand...
Funny you cite this and then say, this person didn't exist...
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
Ok so . . . I believe there hasn't been adequate evidence brought forth that proves Yeshua physically existed.
However, that does NOT in any way prove he didn't exist, I'm not beyond admitting that.

For argument's sake let's say Yeshua did exist during the time he was supposed to
I don't see any evidence that would make him the Son of Yahweh, or any kind of Divine Being, or Messiah as claimed he was/is.

Change My Mind
Click to expand...
Then you are at least in line with the Jews. Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud, there is no doubt pronounced therein concerning that he existed. But the Jews do deny that he is the Messiah, and "Son of God" is a title given to the Messiah.
The Quran confirms that he is the Messiah but rejects that he is God or a physical son of God. But that's no evidence for you because you reject the possibility of inspiration.
 
moralorel said:
Antagonistic? Like what? Like dishing out insults instead of answering questions? Oh wait, that was you. Not liking my answers so you result to violating the forum standards and to name calling? What have I done that was antagonistic? I tend to put a mirror in front of people and they hate that. Looks like you just don't like that.

I DID comment on your original post. You complained that your illogical statements didn't count because they weren't on this thread. I asked how that logically makes any sense and you resorted to insults.

It's okay. When people resort to insults they are always logical and correct. Always.
Click to expand...
You bore the hell outta me . . .
 
talib-al-kalim said:
Then you are at least in line with the Jews. Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud, there is no doubt pronounced therein concerning that he existed. But the Jews do deny that he is the Messiah, and "Son of God" is a title given to the Messiah.
The Quran confirms that he is the Messiah but rejects that he is God or a physical son of God. But that's no evidence for you because you reject the possibility of inspiration.
Click to expand...
You can't use books of fiction to prove non-fiction, the Talmud never mentions Jesus or Yeshua, but does use the name Yeshu as in Yeshu the sorcerer, Yeshu the student, and Yeshu ben Pandera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top