Criticising the Prophet Mohammed is now illegal.

[Macsky]

[emoji23][emoji23]

 

[Macsky]

Yes but there is plenty record of him existing at that time, and none refuting it.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Read the controversial book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross by the dead sea scrolls scholar John Allegro. Tells you all you need to know about religion and cults in the pre Christian world. The religious hierarchy have constantly tried to undermine it over the decades without success.

 

[czechmate]

Am still a Barrister, not having been disbarred, but am admittedly well over a decade away from the coalface; I know / knew the rules in the Anglo-Welsh jurisdiction, can't vouch for what they may be in NI, but suppose they are similar.

Witness evidence can carry great weight but, as we know, can be remarkably unreliable too and is often, in fact regularly, trumped by video or audio recordings as well as forensic evidence. What we think we remember and what is precise fact are not often one and the same.

As for the Gospels, four separate fairy stories don't add up to anything; however, if you want to give them credit - which I would say was unwise for someone on your side of the debate - how do you reconcile their contradictions, both internal and between one another; will you just pick and choose what is convenient for your argument? What about all the verifiable historical inaccuracy and fiction?

Hearsay is admissible where necessary but, as we know, it doesn't carry much weight and the 'witness statements' you refer to were not made by the so-called 'witnesses', but were written down by others well over a century after their deaths. This would mean that, even if there had been some genuine events, it would have been at best third or fourth hand accounts that were recorded, tenuous...

I do want to see and, fortunately, by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' I am able to see beyond the backward fantasies of our primitive forebears. And you could too, if you were to reassume the control of your critical faculties.

What I can't see - note the can't - is why you need a load of supernatural rubbish to give you permission or reason to use some pretty basic and decent rules that we all share in a common humanism (small 'h' there).



'...there is no contemporary historical record refuting his existence.' There is no contemporary historical record refuting the existence of Enoch the flying donkey seller, because he didn't exist. We don't - well I don't - spend my time now refuting the existence of the non-existent because it would be both daft and time consuming, why would the ancients have been any different in this?

'The truth of it posed far too much risk for the established authorities at the time.' Hmm... could that possibly be why, now that we as a species have left our ignorant childhood, the religious don't like having their stories questioned and criticised?

Were there any video or audio recordings 2000 years ago?

You are funny, you believe what Nige will tell you but won’t beleive the bible

 

[Danllan]

Yes but there is plenty record of him existing at that time, and none refuting it.

Share it. As far as I am aware there is nothing contemporary at all, having once debated this with a senior bishop, I can tell you that he was unaware of any either. Good luck.

Were there any video or audio recordings 2000 years ago?

You are funny, you believe what Nige will tell you but won’t beleive the bible

You are funny, are you trying to tell us that you think fourth hand stories from centuries after claimed events with no contemporary record are reliable? Fan of the Stone of Galveston are you?

 

[czechmate]

Share it. As far as I am aware there is nothing contemporary at all, having once debated this with a senior bishop, I can tell you that he was unaware of any either. Good luck.



You are funny, are you trying to tell us that you think fourth hand stories from centuries after claimed events with no contemporary record are reliable? Fan of the Stone of Galveston are you?

Plenty of believers...

 

[alex04w]

Am still a Barrister, not having been disbarred, but am admittedly well over a decade away from the coalface; I know / knew the rules in the Anglo-Welsh jurisdiction, can't vouch for what they may be in NI, but suppose they are similar.

Witness evidence can carry great weight but, as we know, can be remarkably unreliable too and is often, in fact regularly, trumped by video or audio recordings as well as forensic evidence. What we think we remember and what is precise fact are not often one and the same.

As for the Gospels, four separate fairy stories don't add up to anything; however, if you want to give them credit - which I would say was unwise for someone on your side of the debate - how do you reconcile their contradictions, both internal and between one another; will you just pick and choose what is convenient for your argument? What about all the verifiable historical inaccuracy and fiction?

Hearsay is admissible where necessary but, as we know, it doesn't carry much weight and the 'witness statements' you refer to were not made by the so-called 'witnesses', but were written down by others well over a century after their deaths. This would mean that, even if there had been some genuine events, it would have been at best third or fourth hand accounts that were recorded, tenuous...

I do want to see and, fortunately, by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' I am able to see beyond the backward fantasies of our primitive forebears. And you could too, if you were to reassume the control of your critical faculties.

What I can't see - note the can't - is why you need a load of supernatural rubbish to give you permission or reason to use some pretty basic and decent rules that we all share in a common humanism (small 'h' there).



'...there is no contemporary historical record refuting his existence.' There is no contemporary historical record refuting the existence of Enoch the flying donkey seller, because he didn't exist. We don't - well I don't - spend my time now refuting the existence of the non-existent because it would be both daft and time consuming, why would the ancients have been any different in this?

'The truth of it posed far too much risk for the established authorities at the time.' Hmm... could that possibly be why, now that we as a species have left our ignorant childhood, the religious don't like having their stories questioned and criticised?

Apologies if the language I used meant you though I was attacking your legal status. What I was trying to get at was that you have a level of legal understand and training. You know the value of witness evidence.

In this case we have four witnesses who agree.

Your response is to go what you criticise many others for supposedly doing - making wild statements that are not supported.

You claim that the four gospels do not agree, but fail to give an example. You claim that the gospels are not contemporaneous witness statements, but without evidence say they were written by impostors using their names over a hundred years later.

1st Corinthians Ch 10 vrs 11 & 12 - Now these things happened unto them for examples; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Hebrews Ch 2 vrs 3 - How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.

 

[jendan]

Share it. As far as I am aware there is nothing contemporary at all, having once debated this with a senior bishop, I can tell you that he was unaware of any either. Good luck.



You are funny, are you trying to tell us that you think fourth hand stories from centuries after claimed events with no contemporary record are reliable? Fan of the Stone of Galveston are you?

You are wrong here. There is plenty Roman evidence that Jesus existed.

 

[Danllan]

Apologies if the language I used meant you though I was attacking your legal status. What I was trying to get at was that you have a level of legal understand and training. You know the value of witness evidence.

In this case we have four witnesses who agree.

Your response is to go what you criticise many others for supposedly doing - making wild statements that are not supported.

You claim that the four gospels do not agree, but fail to give an example. You claim that the gospels are not contemporaneous witness statements, but without evidence say they were written by impostors using their names over a hundred years later.

1st Corinthians Ch 10 vrs 11 & 12 - Now these things happened unto them for examples; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Hebrews Ch 2 vrs 3 - How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.

I didn't think you were making any comment on my status; I was just being precise and establishing that I have a fair idea over evidential rules over here but not in NI.

Four witnesses? There you go again... how can they have been written by 'witnesses' centuries after the claimed events? Answer that. My 'claims' are nothing of the sort, I merely pass on the recognised and accepted historical facts as agreed by the Vatican, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutherans, the C of E and by major Baptist and Presbyterian academics. Please reveal the identities of recognised and credible theologians who claim that they were written by those they were named for.

Matt 6:5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. (I know this is Old Testament, but it is really funny )

You are wrong here. There is plenty Roman evidence that Jesus existed.

You have contemporary evidence from a Roman source? You are a scholar unique in the world, please share this evidence, claim your place as one of the world's greatest historians! I can't wait...

Whereas, if you are just going try and pass off later mentions of Christians and their chosen prophet, don't waste our time.

 

[czechmate]

I didn't think you were making any comment on my status; I was just being precise and establishing that I have a fair idea over evidential rules over here but not in NI.

Four witnesses? There you go again... how can they have been written by 'witnesses' centuries after the claimed events? Answer that. My 'claims' are nothing of the sort, I merely pass on the recognised and accepted historical facts as agreed by the Vatican, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutherans, the C of E and by major Baptist and Presbyterian academics. Please reveal the identities of recognised and credible theologians who claim that they were written by those they were named for.

Matt 6:5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. (I know this is Old Testament, but it is really funny )



You have contemporary evidence from a Roman source? You are a scholar unique in the world, please share this evidence, claim your place as one of the world's greatest historians! I can't wait...

Whereas, if you are just going try and pass off later mentions of Christians and their chosen prophet, don't waste our time.

For someone who will follow King Nige over a cliff edge, you seem to have a complete lack of an understanding of faith

 

[Danllan]

For someone who will follow King Nige over a cliff edge, you seem to have a complete lack of an understanding of faith

Daft and you're clearly having trouble following the discussion, we are not discussing 'faith', but fact; and that is why the other lot are on to a loser, they conflate belief and faith with fact.

Why are you trying to bring Brexit into this? But, if you are bent that way: it takes more faith to follow your beloved European Commission who are appointed without a manifesto or anything else to be held to, than to follow an elected politician.

 

[alex04w]

I didn't think you were making any comment on my status; I was just being precise and establishing that I have a fair idea over evidential rules over here but not in NI.

Four witnesses? There you go again... how can they have been written by 'witnesses' centuries after the claimed events? Answer that. My 'claims' are nothing of the sort, I merely pass on the recognised and accepted historical facts as agreed by the Vatican, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutherans, the C of E and by major Baptist and Presbyterian academics. Please reveal the identities of recognised and credible theologians who claim that they were written by those they were named for.

Matt 6:5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. (I know this is Old Testament, but it is really funny )



You have contemporary evidence from a Roman source? You are a scholar unique in the world, please share this evidence, claim your place as one of the world's greatest historians! I can't wait...

Whereas, if you are just going try and pass off later mentions of Christians and their chosen prophet, don't waste our time.

And there you go again with your sweeping statements. You state the gospels were written centuries after the events. Another unsupported claim.

You go on to say that this is the position of all the major churches. I wholly disagree. All Presbyterian churches accept and take the Westminster Confession of Faith as their subordinate standard. The exception is the Non Subscribing Presbyterian Church (and the name is self explanatory!). All ministers and elders must sign this before appointment. The Confession is clear in Chapter 1 on the Holy Scriptures that they are to be accepted and are the only rule of faith and life.

The Baptist Confession of Faith is identical in this respect, although these days not all Baptist churches subscribe to it.

The 39 Articles of the Church of England also accepts the Scriptures "of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church'.

I cannot speak for the other church, but I would say that their subordinate standards do not allow for your claim that they accept the gospels as written by other centuries later.

With regards to the rest of you post I would say Galatians Ch 6 vr 7 - Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

 

[Macsky]

I didn't think you were making any comment on my status; I was just being precise and establishing that I have a fair idea over evidential rules over here but not in NI.

Four witnesses? There you go again... how can they have been written by 'witnesses' centuries after the claimed events? Answer that. My 'claims' are nothing of the sort, I merely pass on the recognised and accepted historical facts as agreed by the Vatican, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutherans, the C of E and by major Baptist and Presbyterian academics. Please reveal the identities of recognised and credible theologians who claim that they were written by those they were named for.

Matt 6:5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. (I know this is Old Testament, but it is really funny )



You have contemporary evidence from a Roman source? You are a scholar unique in the world, please share this evidence, claim your place as one of the world's greatest historians! I can't wait...

Whereas, if you are just going try and pass off later mentions of Christians and their chosen prophet, don't waste our time.

What proves that the gospels were not written by the traditional authors?

 

[jendan]

I didn't think you were making any comment on my status; I was just being precise and establishing that I have a fair idea over evidential rules over here but not in NI.

Four witnesses? There you go again... how can they have been written by 'witnesses' centuries after the claimed events? Answer that. My 'claims' are nothing of the sort, I merely pass on the recognised and accepted historical facts as agreed by the Vatican, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutherans, the C of E and by major Baptist and Presbyterian academics. Please reveal the identities of recognised and credible theologians who claim that they were written by those they were named for.

Matt 6:5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. (I know this is Old Testament, but it is really funny )



You have contemporary evidence from a Roman source? You are a scholar unique in the world, please share this evidence, claim your place as one of the world's greatest historians! I can't wait...

Whereas, if you are just going try and pass off later mentions of Christians and their chosen prophet, don't waste our time.

What sort of evidence do you want? Look it up,there is plenty written by the Romans at the time.In the same way that there are letters etc written to and from the Roman troops stationed up here on the Roman Wall.

 

[Danllan]

And there you go again with your sweeping statements. You state the gospels were written centuries after the events. Another unsupported claim...

What proves that the gospels were not written by the traditional authors?

I have no idea what 'traditional authors' means, but I'll be grateful for either of you to flag up any credible source that claims the 'four gospels' were written by those after whom they were named. The world's leading theologians accept that the gospels and the rest of the Bible were not written during or even close to the time of the events described. As Jendan has advised, look it up - even a basic web search will give you loads of references. I am not a great fan of Wikipedia, but it des provide some decent secondary sources.

Al that written, what I note most from this discussion is the fact that you want to talk about non-history rather than remain with the original point which would require you to try to justify the ridiculous supernatural claims your 'faiths' make. I'm happy to continue with the gospel side-track, but let's get back to the absurdity of the claims at the base of all this, the 'virgin birth', 'resurrection', existence of 'God' etc..

What sort of evidence do you want? Look it up,there is plenty written by the Romans at the time.In the same way that there are letters etc written to and from the Roman troops stationed up here on the Roman Wall.

There are some retrospective references to him and many with regard to Christianity, There are no contemporary Roman records of 'Jesus'. I have looked for them, again, and clearly am incapable of matching your research abilities, what I have mentioned above stands out in any number of immediate results but what you mention does not, please help.

 

[Macsky]

You have yet to provide anything to prove that any of the gospels were not written by the authors traditionally attributed with penning them.

What is absurd about the existence of God?

 

[jendan]

I have no idea what 'traditional authors' means, but I'll be grateful for either of you to flag up any credible source that claims the 'four gospels' were written by those after whom they were named. The world's leading theologians accept that the gospels and the rest of the Bible were not written during or even close to the time of the events described. As Jendan has advised, look it up - even a basic web search will give you loads of references. I am not a great fan of Wikipedia, but it des provide some decent secondary sources.

Al that written, what I note most from this discussion is the fact that you want to talk about non-history rather than remain with the original point which would require you to try to justify the ridiculous supernatural claims your 'faiths' make. I'm happy to continue with the gospel side-track, but let's get back to the absurdity of the claims at the base of all this, the 'virgin birth', 'resurrection', existence of 'God' etc..



There are some retrospective references to him and many with regard to Christianity, There are no contemporary Roman records of 'Jesus'. I have looked for them, again, and clearly am incapable of matching your research abilities, what I have mentioned above stands out in any number of immediate results but what you mention does not, please help.

"virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians,applying the standard criteria of historical investigation,find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain"......... i will leave it at that. It is not for me to try and convince you that Jesus(referred to as Christus) existed,or convert you to christianity,or any religion.(You seem to have your own form of Babylonian/Humanist religion),I have problems enough with my own faith and belief,or lack of it. I suspect you have written and argued your responses many times,maybe on this same forum. "Contemporary" ? Is there any contemporary evidence anywhere about anything that is millenia old? Splitting hairs methinks,and obviously would not stand up as evidence in any modern day court.The nearest is probably James,Christs brother,who Paul met,and Pontious Pilate.Some argue that Christs followers,the early Christians,having waited(and been prophesised to them) of their messiah,would hardly make up that he eventually turned up on a Donkey,and ended up being crucified on a cross etc.

 

[Clever Dic]

Um. You wouldn't be well versed then on the life of Jesus, because you would know it's one of the best documented lives of ancient history. Anyway, I have no intention of persuading you to change your own chosen delusion, be that atheism or humanism, or anything else. Only to say that your disrespectful attitude to people of other delusions shows again the immediate relevance of the teachings found in the gospels.
A core principle is to love your enemies and your neighbours more than yourself, putting the needs of others selflessly before your own. Common sense and decency? Very good of course, but Jesus went far beyond that.

You haven't a clue what my religion is, in order to be disgusted at it. But it's note worthy that Jesus shared the very same disgust at the way Jewish organised religion had become a human corruption of what their understanding of God should have been. He tore into the religious heirarchy at almost every turnaround, and of course they hated him for exposing their corruption and hypocracy. It's no surprise they had him executed. Men of God they were not. No, Jesus didn't have time for religion. He gave himself to ordinary people, the sick, the grieving, the broken. Read about him in the four Gospels - he's hard to fault.

So should we be careful of organised religions? Absolutely. They are built and maintained by humans - and history shows time and time again that, far from adding your 'ancient' concepts of common sense and decency to the example of the life and teachings Jesus, people usually bring corruption. Corruption of what is right and good, and corruption and misrepresentation of Jesus. There's a good reason for that. We are all selfish by nature, which is why we mess things up, and why the best of us fail to adequately follow the example of Jesus.

That's why I wouldn't recommend any Christian denomination by name to you, because they are only collections of fallible people, trying (and failing) to understand the path they should take through their lives. And yet, that's exactly what life's all about.

The four Gospels aren't owned or created by any church or denomination or religion. And that's a truely great thing. Because we can read about the life and teachings of Jesus all by ourselves, and form our own opinions. And during the Reformation in Europe, that's exactly what Martin Luther and the subsequent reformers advised people to do. To compare the practices and teachings of organised religion (in that case, the Roman Catholic Church) to the actual teachings of Jesus, and make up their own minds! A mirror of what Jesus himself did.

So by all means, have a healthy scepticism of religions if you wish. I know I do. It's engrained in us descendants of the reformers to constantly question the words, actions, motives of everyone in positions of teaching and leadership, that it concurs with what Jesus said, though not without first holding ourselves to account. But hold off if you will on the ridicule of Jesus. Unless you can find fault with his words or actions, have the common sense, decency, and might I add respect, to leave alone what is sacred to others.

Excellent post. Nicely argued.

 

[Danllan]

You have yet to provide anything to prove that any of the gospels were not written by the authors traditionally attributed with penning them.

What is absurd about the existence of God?

You have done your absolute best to avoid stating that the 'apostles' Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors of these tracts, which has been fun. But I'll now ask you directly, do you - and Ales -claim that these people wrote the texts under discussion? Don't try and prevaricate with ambiguous phrases, once you state your case I'll rebut it.

What is absurd about claiming the existence of a supernatural entity for which there is no demonstrable, tangible, evidence supplied? Hmm, next you'll claim that the fact there are books about it or that some people believe in it makes it true.

"virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians,applying the standard criteria of historical investigation,find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain"......... i will leave it at that...

Where is that quote from? Was it written by a 'believer'? I have no religion at all, I am a rational atheist meaning that I don't and wont suspend the use of my critical faculties, it has well been said that the religious make extraordinary claims but won't offer even mere ordinary evidence to support these extraordinary claims.

You don't like to be asked for contemporary evidence and you ask what contemporary evidence there is for anything 'millennia old' - really? The better part of the Roman Republic was recorded, go to Egypt and take a squint, then China, Assyria etc. etc..

 

[Macsky]

You have done your absolute best to avoid stating that the 'apostles' Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors of these tracts, which has been fun. But I'll now ask you directly, do you - and Ales -claim that these people wrote the texts under discussion? Don't try and prevaricate with ambiguous phrases, once you state your case I'll rebut it.

What is absurd about claiming the existence of a supernatural entity for which there is no demonstrable, tangible, evidence supplied? Hmm, next you'll claim that the fact there are books about it or that some people believe in it makes it true.



Where is that quote from? Was it written by a 'believer'? I have no religion at all, I am a rational atheist meaning that I don't and wont suspend the use of my critical faculties, it has well been said that the religious make extraordinary claims but won't offer even mere ordinary evidence to support these extraordinary claims.

You don't like to be asked for contemporary evidence and you ask what contemporary evidence there is for anything 'millennia old' - really? The better part of the Roman Republic was recorded, go to Egypt and take a squint, then China, Assyria etc. etc..

I’m sorry, I never meant at all to avoid implying that I believe Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels.

Our very existence is evidence enough of a creator God.