[ARCHIVED DEBATE] A Civilized Debate on Religion

[ThePeacekeepers]

Look at Jesus, in my opinion, all he was, was a good man, who simply wanted to remove corruption from the world and spread morals and structure.

Jesus of Nazareth was a pretty decent person. Jesus Christ however was a sociopathic massmurderer that deceived many people into believing that he, God, was loving and caring.

First off I am assuming you are speaking of Yahshua the Christ when you are speaking of Jesus(Zeus).
2. Do you accept that a man was born in Nazareth named Yahshua(Jesus) who professed himself to be the Son of Yahweh, or Yahweh manifest in the flesh as Yahshua?
3. Do you accept that this man had many followers of whom were men named Paul, Matthew, Mark, and Peter who were some of his apostles and that a man named John the Baptist was around at this time also?
4. Do you accept that Yahshua was put on the cross after the Jews demanded for him to be killed by the cross and that he died on that cross?

Many Scholars throughout history have sought to disprove the bible on Historical grounds and when they do so many convert from their current beliefs to Christianity because the more they try to disprove it the further they end up proving that indeed the events depicted in the bible occurred. The bible is the most proven ancient book that has ever existed and has been proven authentic in every way. Below is a link to a site that has information confirming what I have just said, I do not support this site and have not looked into what else they say but concerning the information which I have just stated they are in support and provide a better argument than I can. I have also included another site that supports the views which I have just stated.
http://www.theconspiracyzone.org/posts/42659
http://www.icr.org/biblical-record/

The name Jesus is not the name of the Son of Yahweh. The letter J did not even come to exist as it is today in the English language until 4-5 hundred years ago, and there is no J in the Hebrew language. The name Jesus means Hail Zeus.

Below are some sites that you may look at that prove what I am saying. There are many more like these and maybe some that go into more depth if those two sites do not satisfy you concerning the name of Yahshua. I ask that you take it upon yourself to look in more detail at what the name of the Messiah really is. I do not support these sites but from what I have read in those two links they have a pretty good understanding concerning the name, I have not looked into what else they preach and therefore cannot say that I am agreement with them on everything. Concerning the name of the savior I am in agreement with them that it is Yahshua.
http://www.yahshuaservant.com/
http://www.yahweh.com/The-Name-Of-Yahshua.html

[Ashmoria]

#1 I don't think it matters what the origin of the name jesus is. it refers to the same guy who may have existed way back then.

#2 paul never met jesus.

[Demen 2]

I am not religious. I respect the fact that there are those who are.

[ThePeacekeepers]

#1 I don't think it matters what the origin of the name jesus is. it refers to the same guy who may have existed way back then.

#2 paul never met jesus.

1. They both do not refer to the same person, one refers to a god a Greece, the other refers to the man who actually lived and died on earth. Do you not see a difference between a fictional character and a man who actually lived and died on this planet? Do you see a difference between your dad and Baal? Or your mother and Isis?

2. I agree that paul never met Jesus because Jesus was not and is not a man but a fictional character, but Paul did indeed meet Yahshua the Christ. Do as I have done for you and prove that to me. Show me using historical facts that Paul never met Yahshua, or that Yahshua never existed in the first place. If you look at the links I have provided you I ask that you look at the people before you who tried to disprove that Yahshua ever existed and see what their conclusions were. I ask that you research it, pour through ancient texts and accounts from people who lived in Yahshua’s day and prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt using credible evidence that Yahshua was never born and did not die on the cross.

If I you have doubts about my credibility look up scholars who have researched this subject for years or have devoted their whole lives to proving that Yahshua never existed and was made up. I am confident that by the time you are done researching it as scholar Simon Greenleaf and those like him have done, you will see that there is no way disprove that the events within the bible and more specifically concerning Yahshua did indeed occur.

[Divair2]

I am not religious. I respect the fact that there are those who are.

Respect is a strong word.

[Hindenburgia]

#1 I don't think it matters what the origin of the name jesus is. it refers to the same guy who may have existed way back then.

#2 paul never met jesus.

1. They both do not refer to the same person, one refers to a god a Greece, the other refers to the man who actually lived and died on earth. Do you not see a difference between a fictional character and a man who actually lived and died on this planet? Do you see a difference between your dad and Baal? Or your mother and Isis?

2. I agree that paul never met Jesus because Jesus was not and is not a man but a fictional character, but Paul did indeed meet Yahshua the Christ. Do as I have done for you and prove that to me. Show me using historical facts that Paul never met Yahshua, or that Yahshua never existed in the first place. If you look at the links I have provided you I ask that you look at the people before you who tried to disprove that Yahshua ever existed and see what their conclusions were. I ask that you research it, pour through ancient texts and accounts from people who lived in Yahshua’s day and prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt using credible evidence that Yahshua was never born and did not die on the cross.

If I you have doubts about my credibility look up scholars who have researched this subject for years or have devoted their whole lives to proving that Yahshua never existed and was made up. I am confident that by the time you are done researching it as scholar Simon Greenleaf and those like him have done, you will see that there is no way disprove that the events within the bible and more specifically concerning Yahshua did indeed occur.

"Jesus" is not the same as "Zeus". I'm not sure where you got that from.

Whatever his name was, I'd like to point out that proving that he existed or that some of the things he is described as doing actually happened is not enough to prove that the rest of the stuff in the Bible is true.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Hindenburgia
[/quote]"Jesus" is not the same as "Zeus". I'm not sure where you got that from.

Whatever his name was, I'd like to point out that proving that he existed or that some of the things he is described as doing actually happened is not enough to prove that the rest of the stuff in the Bible is true.[/quote]



Jesus was not the savior. Jesus means Hail Zeus, therefore it is easier to say that Jesus is the same as Zeus since when you say Jesus you are praising zeus. Yahshua is the one and only name by which you can achieve salvation.

Look up the events in the bible for yourself. Go through documents from ancient times, and prove that what the bible says is wrong, Historians have been trying to prove it wrong since its conception but have yet to do so. Look at their works look at what they have discovered and see that it cannot be done. See with your own eyes what they found to be true and then you will be forced to agree that the events depicted in the bible are indeed true. If I could I would do this for you to save you the trouble but I already believe that it is true from the research that I have done. I do not wish to argue but to impart the truth to those who have not heard it. I ask that you look at the links I put on my other post so that you might find some answers.

[Mavorpen]

The bible is the most proven ancient book that has ever existed and has been proven authentic in every way.

Source this.

Below is a link to a site that has information confirming what I have just said,

No. Give us actual academic sources from peer reviewed journals.

[Mavorpen]

Look up the events in the bible for yourself. Go through documents from ancient times, and prove that what the bible says is wrong,

Except for the entirely fictional part that is Exodus.

[Farnhamia]

Jesus was not the savior. Jesus means Hail Zeus, therefore it is easier to say that Jesus is the same as Zeus since when you say Jesus you are praising zeus. Yahshua is the one and only name by which you can achieve salvation.

Look up the events in the bible for yourself. Go through documents from ancient times, and prove that what the bible says is wrong, Historians have been trying to prove it wrong since its conception but have yet to do so. Look at their works look at what they have discovered and see that it cannot be done. See with your own eyes what they found to be true and then you will be forced to agree that the events depicted in the bible are indeed true. If I could I would do this for you to save you the trouble but I already believe that it is true from the research that I have done. I do not wish to argue but to impart the truth to those who have not heard it. I ask that you look at the links I put on my other post so that you might find some answers.

Wiki sayeth:

The name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iesous).[28] The Greek form is a rendition of the Aramaic ישוע‎ (Yeshua), which is derived from the Hebrew יהושע‎ (Yehoshua).[29][30] The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus.[31] The first-century works of historian Flavius Josephus (who wrote in Koine Greek, the same language as that of the New Testament)[32] refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (i.e. Ἰησοῦς).[33] The etymology of Jesus' name in the context of the New Testament is generally given as "Yahweh is salvation".[34]

So it doesn't mean "Hail, Zeus" and while the spellings a re a bit different, you are correct on his actual Aramaic/Hebrew name.

[Hindenburgia]

"Jesus" is not the same as "Zeus". I'm not sure where you got that from.

Whatever his name was, I'd like to point out that proving that he existed or that some of the things he is described as doing actually happened is not enough to prove that the rest of the stuff in the Bible is true.

Jesus was not the savior. Jesus means Hail Zeus, therefore it is easier to say that Jesus is the same as Zeus since when you say Jesus you are praising zeus. Yahshua is the one and only name by which you can achieve salvation.

Show me a source for Jesus meaning "hail Zeus".

Look up the events in the bible for yourself. Go through documents from ancient times, and prove that what the bible says is wrong, Historians have been trying to prove it wrong since its conception but have yet to do so. Look at their works look at what they have discovered and see that it cannot be done. See with your own eyes what they found to be true and then you will be forced to agree that the events depicted in the bible are indeed true. If I could I would do this for you to save you the trouble but I already believe that it is true from the research that I have done. I do not wish to argue but to impart the truth to those who have not heard it. I ask that you look at the links I put on my other post so that you might find some answers.

I have. In fact, I went to a Christian school for a good part of my developmental years. Let us take the story of Jesus (as the historical evidence shows that that was his name EDIT: Apparently both are valid names, so I'll stick to the one more people are likely to recognize) walking on water. There is no reliable historical evidence that this happened. We are pretty certain that Jesus was an actual person, but that does not prove that he walked on water, for instance. This rationale can be extended to many, many other claims and stories found in the Bible.

[ThePeacekeepers]

The bible is the most proven ancient book that has ever existed and has been proven authentic in every way.

Source this.

Below is a link to a site that has information confirming what I have just said,

No. Give us actual academic sources from peer reviewed journals.

So the link I provided that gives you names of people who researched this subject would not be an academic source? Were many of those people not men of science and reason? Were they not men who were well respected by their peers as rational and intelligent men?
I withdraw my statement about it being proven in every way. Instead I would like to say that in the archeological evidence that has been found there is nothing that has shown that the events that occurred in the bible were not true. And I will provide links to prove this statement shortly. By tomorrow I will have the sites for you to see for yourself.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Look up the events in the bible for yourself. Go through documents from ancient times, and prove that what the bible says is wrong,

Except for the entirely fictional part that is Exodus.

How is it fictional? Prove it. Show me the evidence.
For now i'll give you this link to read and then more tomorrow.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Exodus.htm

[Hindenburgia]

Except for the entirely fictional part that is Exodus.

How is it fictional? Prove it. Show me the evidence.
For now i'll give you this link to read and then more tomorrow.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Exodus.htm

1. This is not a scholarly source.

2. It is not on us to prove that your claims are true. You must prove that the Bible is true, and that has simply not been done for more than a few, specific details. For instance, prove that Jesus walked on water.

3. I'd still like to see you respond to my post.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Jesus was not the savior. Jesus means Hail Zeus, therefore it is easier to say that Jesus is the same as Zeus since when you say Jesus you are praising zeus. Yahshua is the one and only name by which you can achieve salvation.

Show me a source for Jesus meaning "hail Zeus".

Look up the events in the bible for yourself. Go through documents from ancient times, and prove that what the bible says is wrong, Historians have been trying to prove it wrong since its conception but have yet to do so. Look at their works look at what they have discovered and see that it cannot be done. See with your own eyes what they found to be true and then you will be forced to agree that the events depicted in the bible are indeed true. If I could I would do this for you to save you the trouble but I already believe that it is true from the research that I have done. I do not wish to argue but to impart the truth to those who have not heard it. I ask that you look at the links I put on my other post so that you might find some answers.

I have. In fact, I went to a Christian school for a good part of my developmental years. Let us take the story of Jesus (as the historical evidence shows that that was his name EDIT: Apparently both are valid names, so I'll stick to the one more people are likely to recognize) walking on water. There is no reliable historical evidence that this happened. We are pretty certain that Jesus was an actual person, but that does not prove that he walked on water, for instance. This rationale can be extended to many, many other claims and stories found in the Bible.

I will provide I source for the Hail Zeus meaning tomorrow when I find the time, as to one of your other statements I ask how can the name Jesus which was changed so much from the original name of Yahshua be the same? They sound nothing alike, neither do they have the same meaning, the bible says there is one name by which you can be saved. Are jesus and Yahshua not two completely different names? Just as the name annie and the name Stephen are different. If there is was one name by which you can be saved wouldn't that name be important that you keep it the same.The original. To keep the name sacred. There is only one name and that name is Yahshua.
On your last statement I will have to address tomorrow for I am out of time.

[Avenio]

The name Jesus is not the name of the Son of Yahweh. The letter J did not even come to exist as it is today in the English language until 4-5 hundred years ago, and there is no J in the Hebrew language. The name Jesus means Hail Zeus.

An interesting point, that. So what did the speakers of English, French, Spanish and Italian call Jesus before that? They called him 'Iesus', a Latinization of the Greek name 'Iesous', which is in turn a Hellenization of the Hebrew name 'Yeshua'.

[Mavorpen]

So the link I provided that gives you names of people who researched this subject would not be an academic source?

No. Definitely not.

Except for the entirely fictional part that is Exodus.

How is it fictional? Prove it. Show me the evidence.
For now i'll give you this link to read and then more tomorrow.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Exodus.htm

Still waiting on anything resembling an academic source.

[Hindenburgia]

Show me a source for Jesus meaning "hail Zeus".


I have. In fact, I went to a Christian school for a good part of my developmental years. Let us take the story of Jesus (as the historical evidence shows that that was his name EDIT: Apparently both are valid names, so I'll stick to the one more people are likely to recognize) walking on water. There is no reliable historical evidence that this happened. We are pretty certain that Jesus was an actual person, but that does not prove that he walked on water, for instance. This rationale can be extended to many, many other claims and stories found in the Bible.

I will provide I source for the Hail Zeus meaning tomorrow when I find the time, as to one of your other statements I ask how can the name Jesus which was changed so much from the original name of Yahshua be the same? They sound nothing alike, neither do they have the same meaning, the bible says there is one name by which you can be saved. Are jesus and Yahshua not two completely different names? Just as the name annie and the name Stephen are different. If there is was one name by which you can be saved wouldn't that name be important that you keep it the same.The original. To keep the name sacred. There is only one name and that name is Yahshua.
On your last statement I will have to address tomorrow for I am out of time.

"Joseph" is generally considered the English form of "Jose", despite the two names sounding very different. Like another poster posted:

The name Jesus is not the name of the Son of Yahweh. The letter J did not even come to exist as it is today in the English language until 4-5 hundred years ago, and there is no J in the Hebrew language. The name Jesus means Hail Zeus.

An interesting point, that. So what did the speakers of English, French, Spanish and Italian call Jesus before that? They called him 'Iesus', a Latinization of the Greek name 'Iesous', which is in turn a Hellenization of the Hebrew name 'Yeshua'.

As for the second point, I await your response.

[Menassa]

Nonsense. It is written, that the favor of Yehowah passes on from mother´s bloodline to all offsprings.

Is it not also written that the tribes were not to mix with each other or other nations? The Jews of today are not true Jews. Do the Jews of today keep the Law? Do they sacrifice for their sins? If the messiah has not come as they say then the law has not been fulfilled and therefore they are still under it for only through the Messiah can it be fulfilled. If on the other hand the Messiah did come then they do not accept him and can not achieve salvation. The Messiah did come and his Name is Yahshua the chirst and in his name only is there salvation. The Jews of today neither keep the law nor do they accept Yahshua as their savior. How can they be saved? I pray for the day that all nations will be gathered against Jerusalem as the lord said will happen Zechariah 14.

Erm, God never said the Law was supposed to be fulfilled, rather he said that the Law will stand forever and he called heaven as earth as witnesses.
He also never said the Belief in the Messiah was critical to salvation because the real Messiah will not require belief.

[Menassa]

I know this is a little of topic, but I don't get why people hate Jews so much. I get why muslims hate Jews, but other that that, I don't get why other people hate Jews.

The Jews of today are not true Jews, they have mixed to much with other peoples to still be called Yahweh's chosen people. The Original tribes were not allowed to mix even amongst themselves but the Jewish people of today have mixed with all the peoples of the world and therefore are not true Jews, but a mongrel people mixed beyond recognition. I do not hate Jews but when I look at Israel today and see what they are doing to the Palestinians I can understand why they could be hated.

I don't know what you mean by 'mongrel' but do you have any evidence for this 'mixing?' and how it was any different than the Biblical times?
Do you have God stating his rejection of the Jewish people?

[Sbrachvinkistan]

Religon made by mankind, therefore it's unlikely mankind will ever get rid of it. However humanity can always circumvent it to a point where it can't do any harm.

[Me-lek]

if a god really existed, he'd either be full on "for humanity!" like the God Emperor of Mankind from warhammer 40k or he'd be Necoho the god of atheism.
because if anything, either humanity will create their own god, or the "god" out there is a complete paradox.

[Ashmoria]

#1 I don't think it matters what the origin of the name jesus is. it refers to the same guy who may have existed way back then.

#2 paul never met jesus.

1. They both do not refer to the same person, one refers to a god a Greece, the other refers to the man who actually lived and died on earth. Do you not see a difference between a fictional character and a man who actually lived and died on this planet? Do you see a difference between your dad and Baal? Or your mother and Isis?

2. I agree that paul never met Jesus because Jesus was not and is not a man but a fictional character, but Paul did indeed meet Yahshua the Christ. Do as I have done for you and prove that to me. Show me using historical facts that Paul never met Yahshua, or that Yahshua never existed in the first place. If you look at the links I have provided you I ask that you look at the people before you who tried to disprove that Yahshua ever existed and see what their conclusions were. I ask that you research it, pour through ancient texts and accounts from people who lived in Yahshua’s day and prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt using credible evidence that Yahshua was never born and did not die on the cross.

If I you have doubts about my credibility look up scholars who have researched this subject for years or have devoted their whole lives to proving that Yahshua never existed and was made up. I am confident that by the time you are done researching it as scholar Simon Greenleaf and those like him have done, you will see that there is no way disprove that the events within the bible and more specifically concerning Yahshua did indeed occur.

if there is a separate guy knows as yashua we know utterly nothing about him. the NT was written about jesus and contains stories about jesus and his followers. those stories may be false, made up, fictional, whatever but they are the only things we know about jesus. there are no stories about yashua.

have you read the NT? paul never met jesus, never claimed to have met jesus (in the flesh), came to Christianity well after jesus died, and had his own religious experience of the spiritual Christ when on his way to Damascus.

[Divair2]

Religon made by mankind, therefore it's unlikely mankind will ever get rid of it. However humanity can always circumvent it to a point where it can't do any harm.

Just because we create something doesn't mean we can't get rid of it.

[ThePeacekeepers]

So the link I provided that gives you names of people who researched this subject would not be an academic source?

No. Definitely not.

How is it fictional? Prove it. Show me the evidence.
For now i'll give you this link to read and then more tomorrow.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Exodus.htm

Still waiting on anything resembling an academic source.

The men in the former link I provided http://www.theconspiracyzone.org/posts/42659 they were men of science and reason look at their works, look at Simon Greenleaf with his testimony of the evangelists. Look at what he did before he wrote it, see that he too did not believe.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... nleaf.html
http://www.creationstudies.org/Educatio ... nleaf.html