[en] Jesus did not exist?

[Elvain]

I found an interesting thread about this topic on paradox forums.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=243890

Anyone here interested in the topic?

[Angryminer]

Of course I'm interested in the topic, but the site the starter of that thread linked to is rather horrible. I share the opinion, but I don't like the style of argumentation, or, mostly not-argumentation.

Angryminer

[Xuca]

I think Jesus existed, no matter if he was right or not. Most of the myths are based on real historical people or happenings, rather than everything was made up.

[Largefry07]

I could say a lot on this subject but you can mostly tell what I would say by reading my sign. Anyways I'll keep Rich Oliver (the starter of the thread) and others who agree with him in my prayers and that his and their eyes would be opened up to the Truth.

[Doux]

I agree with Xuca. And afte some reading also with Angryminer.

But then - does it really matter if he existed?
Any way around, we'll never know it for sure, of course.

[People's Republic of China]

You folk will know in the end.

[Richard]

I actually believe that Jesus existed. He didn't have any powers like making wine out of water or stuff like that in the bible, nor that he was the son of a "god" or any of that mumbo jumbo.
He probably was just a simple educated man that wanted to stop the Roman ocupation over the Jews and probably gain some power in the process.

It is the nature of humans to make God like figures and symbols out of fallen martyrs for a common cause. And so chritianity was born out of him and that cause. As time went by people saw the power they could claim with it.

[Elvain]

I think there is no argue IF he was or not. We can only argue who he was.

And with close-minded people who don't accept other than one source which is rather subjective you can never find a conclusion in a discussion. They will keep what they think as a truth.

in the end - Their bad, not our :sad:

[Angryminer]

A discussion isn't always about convincing other people of your opinion. We're not missionaries. A discussion can also be about just exchanging viewpoints and the reasons behind these. That helps us to understand and accept other people's opinion. Many problems in the world are caused by ignorance against other people's opinions and believes.

Angryminer

[Elvain]

Well said Angryminer. Keep our minds opened

[Richard]

That's true, we should keep our minds open. Been able to understand other people's ideas and believes is the source of knowledge, understanding and at its highest level, Peace and coexistence with other cultures. Some ideas, however, are impossible for me to respect or understand like that of thinking of people that cause the death of millions as heroes.
Note the last sentence is not directed at religion(thu it has cause wars) or Jesus, but to other figures in the last 100 years.

[Angryminer]

You don't have to agree with other people's opinion. But you have to acknowledge that they didn't just make that up to disturb you. At some time of their live all their known or felt facts pointed towards that opinion. They came to the conclusion that this was the best currently available explanation for things. Just as you did for yourself. That is a valid process. They didn't do it out of stupidity or something like that.
Thus you should try to understand for what reasons someone else believes in what he believes. That is a basis to understand each other so we can start a process of exchange.

I read a book on general history and it said that the reasons for Nazis in germany was that one day all germans turned stupid.
Great, nothing learned. "They turned stupid, but we're not stupid, not our problem."
It may be a horribly wrong opinion, but it has a cause as explained above ('all available facts pointed towards...' - draw the connection to 1933). People don't make up opinions without valid reasons. Once you accepted this you can start exchanging views and facts, upon which we can start to rethink our opinions.

[Edit]
I'm sorry that we're offtopic, but I believe that the discussion is too valuable to be removed. If it grows too large I'll copy it into it's own thread.

Angryminer

[Elvain]

You are absolutely right, Angryminer.

The problem is, how can 2 people discuss and exchange opinions when one or both sides don't accept facts given by the other side and says those facts are just someones imagination?
Once the other side accepts such things as absolute truth, there is no possibility of further discussion, no matter if those facts are true or false.

Once your life is all built on a "fact" that Jesus was son of the God, you are simply unable to discuss and exchange opinions with people who don't accept this as a fact and doubt about it.

That's why this discussion is completely pointless as one side is unable to free it's mind from it's basis.

[Angryminer]

Once your life is all built on a "fact" that Jesus was son of the God, you are simply unable to discuss and exchange opinions with people who don't accept this as a fact and doubt about it.Actually I don't agree at all.
If someone tells you that Jesus must have existed in the form the bible describes it then your question shouldn't be "You're wrong, he didn't! I have proof!" but "Why do you think so?".
The likely answer is "Because the bible says so and I believe that the bible is correct." You're answer shouldn't be "You're wrong, the bible isn't correct! I have proof!" but "How do you come to that conclusion? I know articles about excavations that indicate otherwise."

See the pattern? You're saying that it is impossible to discuss with them, but actually you are the cause that there is no discussion, because you're not willing to ask the correct questions. ('You' is generalized here. Not personal.)
Things may be obvious to you, but they appear just as obvious to them.

Every opinion has valid reasons. Otherwise no one would have that specific opinion. Discussions are about exchange of opinions and, more importantly, the exchange of viewpoints on the reasons for the discussed opinions.

Angryminer

[Elvain]

Actually I don't agree at all.
If someone tells you that Jesus must have existed in the form the bible describes it then your question shouldn't be "You're wrong, he didn't! I have proof!" but "Why do you think so?".
The likely answer is "Because the bible says so and I believe that the bible is correct." You're answer shouldn't be "You're wrong, the bible isn't correct! I have proof!" but "How do you come to that conclusion? I know articles about excavations that indicate otherwise."

See the pattern? You're saying that it is impossible to discuss with them, but actually you are the cause that there is no discussion, because you're not willing to ask the correct questions. ('You' is generalized here. Not personal.)
Things may be obvious to you, but they appear just as obvious to them.

Every opinion has valid reasons. Otherwise no one would have that specific opinion. Discussions are about exchange of opinions and, more importantly, the exchange of viewpoints on the reasons for the discussed opinions.

Angryminer
I totally assume that the problem is on BOTH sides, me personaly very including!

But there is a big diference.

I say, there is ONE very subjective source claiming someone was this and that (let's transform it: there is only ONE source that says Muhammed is the last Prophet of the One God)

I don't say "no, it's wrong", or at least I try hard not to say it. I say. There is no other proof. You may think it as much as I can think (based on other One and very subjective source - what I assume) that Muhammad is NOT the last Prophet of One God. There is no diference between these two opinions.

Also I say: I respect your One and very subjective source in most of aspects, especially those which set up moral values that have been proven good by long tradition, and even more those parts which can serve as historical source and are proven by other independent historical sources. I just don't respect those parts which are historical source which is evidently ideologicaly coloured and/or was falsified by other historical sources which are independent one on each other.

On the other hand, they say about my source: it is wonrg because my source is the only truth. This is the point where the discussion stops, as I see it

[People's Republic of China]

Actually I don't agree at all.
If someone tells you that Jesus must have existed in the form the bible describes it then your question shouldn't be "You're wrong, he didn't! I have proof!" but "Why do you think so?".
The likely answer is "Because the bible says so and I believe that the bible is correct." You're answer shouldn't be "You're wrong, the bible isn't correct! I have proof!" but "How do you come to that conclusion? I know articles about excavations that indicate otherwise."

See the pattern? You're saying that it is impossible to discuss with them, but actually you are the cause that there is no discussion, because you're not willing to ask the correct questions. ('You' is generalized here. Not personal.)
Things may be obvious to you, but they appear just as obvious to them.

Every opinion has valid reasons. Otherwise no one would have that specific opinion. Discussions are about exchange of opinions and, more importantly, the exchange of viewpoints on the reasons for the discussed opinions.

Angryminer


Well put.:go: :cheers: :wink:

And it works both ways. Many belivers are afraid to ask questions of the opposition and they finalize their answer "the Bible's right, end of discussion" (ok, it is; but convincing people but just saying "it is" is never going to work).

And the other side is the same way, like Angryminer said.

The end result is: both sides in the discussion get more cynical, irritable, doubtful about their cause, introverted, and harsh.

No one gets anywhere and a lot of people get hurt (emotionally and mentally).
--
The ideal of sharing ideas is one side asks a ?, the other answers and ask another ?, and the cycle repeats until both sides understand each other.
--
The thread is WAY off topic, but this dicussion is important.

[Elvain]

And it works both ways. Many belivers are afraid to ask questions of the opposition and they finalize their answer "the Bible's right, end of discussion" (ok, it is; but convincing people but just saying "it is" is never going to work).

well, just like you said. The Bible is correct and all other historical sources are lies, didn't you :lol:
The Bible is continually attacked from all sides throughout history, and the Bible always wins in the end, so I'm not worried about anything. People who go looking for evidence against the Bible always get defeated in the end. Maybe not in their lifetime but in the future.

The Bible is correct about the Assyrians, the other sources do coraberate the Bible.
end of discussion. There is no way that my sources, whatever they are, can be true because the Bible always wins (in eyes of the Believers, in the eyes of non-believers it lost many times).

Why should I bother to give you my sources when I have no chance to be right?

And you claim it is me and my side who always says: "You're wrong, the bible isn't correct! I have proof!". Well you say: !You're wrong. The Bible is correct! And there is no proof for it except the Bible itself and my faith!"

Sometimes, more or less, when the discussion gets to such point I'm becoming the same, I assume.

[Angryminer]

Sorry for reacting personally, Elvain, but I'm not trying to blame you at all. I'm making suggestions, feel free to disagree.
Your reaction should have been "Why do you believe that there are no other sources?", or "In which way do you think my sources actually back up the bible? I was under the impression they didn't."

Propably the posts of PRoC should be read as: "Due to my religious believes I think that ... the other sources do collaborate the Bible." He didn't say that you're points are invalid. He made a statement about how your sources have to be understood. The way I read it he just stated his opinion. Of course his opinion is contrary to your points, but that should be the reason to start a discussion, not to end it.
Even the greece knew that if you can't agree on something you have find a lower level where you do agree. After that you reconstruct everything backwards and see where you end up.

I'm under the impression you think of PRoC's points as invalid. They may appear to be from your viewpoint - I also don't agree with PRoC - but in that case you should consider his opinion valid, and ask him to make points to back up that opinion. If he fails to do that you can properly judge it and may consider it wrong after that.

Angryminer

[Elvain]

The difference is:
I respect his source as one of sources equal to the others
He respets it as the only valid source.

How can we discuss if he doesn't accept the majority of what I am saying?
I respect it that because of his faith he may think his source stays above mine. But my sources are not only accepted as lower valid sources but as invalid sources.

100 hundered times you saw an apple being round. But you red a book which says that apple is long and very narrow. Would you believe that the apple is long and narrow? I would say that such book is wrong.

So I say that Bible is wrong in those aspects which go against dozens of archaeological excavations all around the middle east, but is right there where those excavations correspond.
But to claim that after all all those excavations will be proven wrong? So what they are? Did some atheist put all that under the ground to prove Bible is incorrect? No, it simply is sometimes. I oppose a claim that the Bible is averywhere and everything correct. As well as I opppose a claim that any other book is everywhere and in everything absolutely correct.

I take his opinions as invalid. how can I take as valid something that was proven invalid?

We're too way offtopic. I don't say that he's wrong at points if God exists or not. I try to think in intentions that he does exist and ask a questions. I am able to step into his field of thinking, but did he (and any of his-like disputers) ever once stepped into my field, respecting a single of my side's argument as valid?

With exception of Dobber I still wait for a believer that is able to open his mind to facts he doesn't believe, as I am able to open my mind to the fact that God exists

[Angryminer]

I'm actually a bit depressed because you don't seem to react to what I write.

No one said that all excavations and scientific papers on the topic are made up. Not even PRoC said that. He said that, as far as his sources go, these excavations support what the bible says and don't contradict it, if you look closely. He didn't state the reasons for that. Thus we should ask him to explain that further.

100 hundered times you saw an apple being round. But you red a book which says that apple is long and very narrow. Would you believe that the apple is long and narrow? I would say that such book is wrong.This is exactly the style of discussion I was raising points against in this thread. PRoC didn't make up his opinion. He has reasons to believe in what he does. But instead of trying to understand these reasons you trivialize the discussion and imply that he is wrong where you are right.
I'm actually very sad about that.

Angryminer