I'm just wondering. Many people say that Jesus never existed, and that the whole story is a myth. I'm just wondering, how would he have shown up in the Bible and the Quran?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Are you kidding?
Jesus only exists because of the bible. If it were not for the bible no one would have even heard of a jesus other than the guy that mows my neighbor's lawn. And he is only mentioned in the Quran because islam is born out of christianity. Same myth, same god.
Pork222, the Quran was written some centuries after much of the biblical text. It was obviously written by someone who knew major pieces of what we call the Old and New Testaments. If you've not read the Bible and the Quran and are deeply interested, read them. You'll be stunned at how the biblical tale is retold in the Quran. And to answer your question, Jesus is in both because the Quran is directly inspired by the Bible.
@Truett: You obviously have a lot more patience than I have with these kind of people. That honors you. I'm unable.
The Arabs got the Jewish/Christian religious stories and put their own spin on them. Uthman's committee then wrote the Koran. The Christians didn't have their stories in an unified book. So to counter the newly written Koran they got a committee together, raised a herd of cattle for vellum, and got to work. The committee in England made three fancy copies, at about 75 pounds each. They sent one to the Pope as a gift because the Bible as a book didn't exist until around the year 700 A.D. And everyone has been revising it since then. The revisions included numbered chapters and then numbered verses. Later on they changed the names of the main characters and made the Israelites "Jews".
Then, much later, someone changed the Koran to follow the Bible format of numbered chapters and verses.
Selling the fairy tale is big business, employs a lot of people, and makes them feel important. So they all have a vested interest in keeping the fairy tales going. Now it's impossible for Islam to deny Judaism and Christianity and it has to insist that they are both true to a certain extent. Christianity can't deny Judaism but it did change some of the names of the main characters to make them more appealing to European Gentiles. Judaism doesn't particularly like either of them and has a vendetta against Christianity so it has always collaborated with Islam against Christianity. The ultimate objective of Judaism is to make everyone its slaves.
If superman didn't exist, why does he show up in the comics?
@Nyarlathotep: hahhahahhaa Don't give him ideas or he will ask why Jesus appears in movies!
what superman comic book does baby jebbus appear in?
Superman (Kal-el) was sent by his father (Jor-el) to save the world, though in contrast with the Jesus myth, Jor-el's aim was to save his son rather than kill him. And unlike Jehovah, Jor-el was actually married to the mother of his son.
El is an ancient Middle Eastern word for "god" (also found in "Isra-el"). So is Superman supposed to be Jesus and Jor-El god? Marlon Brando's grandiose portrayal of Jor-el certainly suggests that.
The original writer and artist were the children of Jewish immigrants, so they would probably have been aware of the meaning of "El".
In any case, the Superman myth, like the Harry Potter myth, has a lot more inner consistency and makes better moral sense than the Jesus myth.
Hah! Fascinating never saw the superman story that way. I did not know the significance of "el" I learned something today. Thanks :)
I do certainly agree that the superman comic has tons more consistency than the bible.
Even though there is a million and one inconsistencies with a man(alien) having so much power and how he uses it, it still way better than the bible.
Woah, it is that easy to have people believe you are a god or son of god?
Have two different books mention you by name?
My first name is pretty common, I bet I can find hundreds of books that mention me by name, exact same spelling and all!
Bow down to me pork222! I am your god! Gimme Money! Tell all your friends I am god too! So I can get their money and blind faithful followers/worshippers that will do anything I demand no matter how stupid it is!
@pork222: Throughout my life I have heard and read many stupidities about religion, but this one takes the prize because, besides being stupid, it is ignorant and imbecile. By the way, before go on, and for the record, it's all a matter of getting you out of your supine absurdity, Jesus is also in the Torah.
First, the Gospels were written in the third century, Jesus was included in the Torah in the fourth century and the Quran was written in the sixth century... oh, and none of these three books were written by saints.
Second, Jesus is included in the Torah as a way to mitigate the persecution to which they are subjected, accused of murderers of Jesus, especially after the genocide of Alexandria.
Third, the Quran is a rehash of the Torah and the Bible; indeed, the inclusion of the holy places of the other two religions of the book allows the newly born Muslim religion, created as an instrument of expansion, to appropriate these places as places of faith. Muhammad recreates many of Constantine's needs and maneuvers to create a religion, although for different reasons, to unite the nomadic tribes under one command and for a powerful reason, god commands it.
Have I already told you that all this is in the fucking history books, dear ignorant believer?
And before I forget, it isn't "Many people say that Jesus never existed", there's no evidence, archaeological, historical, of any kind, that gives rise to the existence of that personage. That "many people" just tell the truth.
Now the issue is whether you will answer the question that I have already asked you on another occasion, you know, Have you any archeological, historical, or any other evidence that proves Jesus' existence? It's simple, Yes, or Not, and if the answer is yes, which one?
C'mon.
P.S.
Oh, and remember, the gospels were written in the third century by Greeks, the bible is a book of fiction and is as proof of the existence of someone as the Lord of the rings is to proof the existence of Bilbo Bolson. Don't try to quote that book.
P.S.S.
And all this is summed up in read a fucking history book.
pork the way I see it is that the quran was given by the arch angel Gabriel around the 6th century a full 600 years after the Christ. The Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet not a son of god. They have no warrant for a thing called the trinity. Nor do they believe that it was Jesus who died on the cross and rose from the grave.They say that the father only not that God had an offspring.They go on to say that would involve sex with Mary.I would like to correct SB about one thing, And that is that the gospel of Mark goes back to possibly as early as 55 AD. All the gospels were written in the first century.
The stories might have been created in the First Century but they weren't written until much later. There were no central publishing houses then.
@Diotrephes: second, from the second century, although most of the gospels were written throughout the 3rd century in Greek. The only Gospel that has parts written in the first century is that of John and the reference is only to the apocalypse, if we read carefully we can find Nero in the figure of the antichrist, etc., etc., and we know it because we can trace the text with the apocalypse of Ezra, written originally in Aramaic, although we cannot confuse one with the other.
It's highly doubtful if you can produce a clear, legible, meaningful copy of an original 3rd Century Greek Gospel.
@Diotrephes: I don't know if I'll do it right, but I'll try to upload an image of the Gospel of Saint Thomas and another of the Gospel of John. In all there are forty-eight gospels written in Greek and dated to the third century. These are saved in the British Library and are usually exposed to the public.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I'm sorry, I didn't know how to upload two pictures together. The above image is from the Gospel of St. Thomas and this is from the Gospel of John. This is important because it shows that the Greek scribe added to the original copy, let us remember that the Gospel of John is the oldest Gospel included in the bible.
Hope this can help you.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Thanks for the information. But as usual such images only prove themselves to be fakes. They are never clear images and they written in the modern Greek script.
@Diotrephes: There're a total of forty-eight documented gospels written in the third century, although we know that there were more than two hundred and at the Council of Nicaea there were over seventy... all written in Greek. The images I've exposed are from the permanent exhibition of the British Library and, unless you're saying that the British Library exposes falsified and non-authenticated documents, I imagine you said it because you didn't know where the images came from.
Everyone has an interest in validating the fairy tale so why wouldn't the British Library get in on it? The English wrote the Bible, revised the Koran, and designed Islamic mosques around the world.
As I've said before, they will never show any clear and legible copies of so-called ancient manuscripts. That's because they are fakes.
Have you any data specific to these documents that support the claim you've made about them being fake?
Even if these are not fakes. (I happen to think it is fairly likely these are old documents of religious interest that could be dated to the 3rd century AD. Written in Greek.
These documents point out powerful major logical issues with the bible you read.
One, the english bible is a translation. Parts of the bible cobbled together from all sorts of languages. Translated by imperfect humans. The very best translators in the world will tell you that translation is imperfect, especially on issues that pertain to rules and religion. Lets not forget the writers and editors of this book that is well over 1000 years old had an agenda, further polluting the original work. Do you really think no imperfect human writer, translator, perfectly translated and updated the original perfect word of god? Why did the bible have to be translated at all? Why did it have to be updated at all? If it was perfect it would not need any of these things!
Two, the sources the bible uses are very old. Stories change quickly, they can change a tremendous amount over time. Every other book, every other piece of history written by man has changed a lot over time even if the words are the same our interpretation of the words will change greatly. Somehow, magically this book, is immune to all that?
You have to conclude even if you believe in god and the bible. That while somehow magically the original bible was the word of god. The bible you read was a translated, edited version of that. Even if you believe in god and that the original bible was the word of god, you would be a fool if you think the bible you read is still the perfect word of god. Especially considering like every other book the bible is written by people, edited by people and printed by people.
Once you realize the bible is not the perfect word of god, the entire argument of the bible falls apart pretty quickly. (It should be obvious just reading the bible it is not the perfect word of god anyways!)
Once you realize the bible is not perfect and that it contains errors, it becomes a game of: what parts are true and what parts are not? There is no way to tell except to move to science and the scientific method. (Which utterly destroys 99% of the bible's "facts" in all versions of the bible.)
CyberLN.
It should be obvious that they are fakes. For one thing you can't even see them. They are dark and fuzzy. You never see more than a small piece. It's hard to see the language they are written in. They don't seen to be from scrolls but sheets of paper. They are as worthless as the Shroud of Turin.
So, based on your reply, I take it you have no testable, verifiable data. Therefore, it is not, indeed, obvious.
CyberLN,
Before you know it you will be a true believer. Sometimes self-professed atheists are the strongest believers in the religious fairy tales.
For goodness sake. Use your own common sense and life experience. If someone came to you with such documents in a business deal would you accept them as legitimate? I would hope not.
Whoops! I totally lost track of the conversation here and manage to make myself look like an idiot. I will leave the original post below unless CyberLN prefers I delete it.
I will wear my sign of shame, I own up to my mistakes. Feel free to point and laugh, this is not a mistake I would like to repeat, or a lesson I want to forget.
-------------------------------Original Post below-----------------------------
I like how CyberLN did not even respond to my long post right above your reply Diotrephes.
Perhaps reading is difficult for CyberLN.
If CyberLN cant read anything other than simple short thoughts that confirm with his confused worldview, of course he is the way he is. Easily subjugated and made into willing sheep that just bleat out the nonsense they were told by someone else with an agenda to control them.
Wow.
04/18, 03:59 hrs (your times may appear different depending on the time zone you chose when setting up your account) SB posts pictures of docs in the British Library stating that they are dated to the 3rd century.
04/19 10:47 hrs, Diotrephes says "such images only prove themselves to be fakes."
04/20 11:05 hrs, I ask Diotrephes if s/he has any data to back up the assertion that the documents are fake.
04/20 11:23 hrs, you say, "I happen to think it's likely these are old documents of religious interest that could be dated to the third century AD."
This agrees with what SB has said and disagrees that they are fake as Diotrephes has asserted.
04/20 11:31 hrs, Diotrephes tells me it should be obvious that they are fakes.
04/20 12:04 hrs, I respond that without testable, verifiable data, it is not obvious that they are fakes.
The ensuing post at 13:39 hrs from Diotrephes and yours at 14:15 hrs confuse the hell out of me. Did you jump to the conclusion that I am a theist? Did you jump to the conclusion that I think the CONTENT of the documents speaks truth simply because I asked for proof to support he assertion they are fakes and not from the 3rd century?
If you think that requesting supporting data when an assertion is made makes someone a sheep then there's a chance you don't understand the definition of the word 'sceptic'.
I deeply apologize. I jumped in and out of the conversation when work gets slow for me. Let this be a lesson to me to either not do that, or be much more careful in doing that.
I made an assumption and ended up making an ass out of my self.
Apology accepted. Just because we sometimes MAKE mistakes, it doesn't mean we ARE mistakes :-)
CyberLN.
This is a logic question to try to understand where you are so if you want to answer it fine, if you don't that's OK.
Who added or deleted the Apocrypha to the Bible and when did he do it?
Pages