ghettoperson wrote:
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Lisik wrote:
As for Abraham and co. they are all real, you can come and visit their graves.
Yeah, whatever. Why can't you just accept it's not real, but at least learn the (good) values you're supposed to learn. Because at the end of the day, that's all they ever wanted. None of those "Gods chosen people" bullshit, or any of that "Pope" shit, or "Holy Land" and other shit like that. That's all unnecessary.
Question: Do you actually believe that you're "Gods chosen people" (assuming you're a Jewish Israeli) - Do you actually believe that? Because if you do. You're no better than your best friend Hitler.
Mek, just because you don't like the religion, don't try to prove people didn't exist. Whether your religious or not, a lot of sources from the time indicate that a lot of the people in the Bible did exist. Being an atheist does not mean you can't believe some people existed.
As far as I know, the only sources for the majority of the figures in the bible are religious texts. Perhaps, rulers etc that they mentioned.. were real, such as Herod and Rameses (or something), but there is little to not proof outside religious texts that the events happened etc... Characters like Jesus haven't been mentioned outside the Bible/religious texsts in historical texts from around that time. I remember hearing it on radio. The presenter kept asking where are the other texts confirming Jesus existence and the christian kept saying it was a matter of believing the religious texts and ignoring the fact that there is no other historical evidence.
Look.
An interesting article.
http://www.infidels.org/library/histori … _live.htmlWhat, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.
His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question!
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-05-18 14:17:02)
