Such texts were forgeries written long after the time he supposedly lived. Even the bible accounts of him were penned after the fact. Durring a time when writing and philosphy were wide-spread, why is there nothing from his time that talks about him? I mean a guy who feeds 5000 people with a couple fish and a bit of bread should at least get a passing mention in the local rag. You know, something like:
"Today a man named Jesus performed a miracle, healed the sick and threw a great party. Exclusive interview!"
~X
You are silly. Jesus is real, and He walks among us!
| |
The historians would have to be trustring that the bible is entirely true (and with some of the stuff in their, they'd have to be a little nuts to do so).
| |
Popisfizzy wrote:
Jp. He had a blog post or comment on it, but I can't be bothered to dig it up now. He'll probably provide this information himself as soon as he finds this post (provided it isn't closed by that time). This topic is pointless. it's nothing more than a topic being used by some morons to flame people for things that they feel like (IE: those two flaming me for something they cannot disprove themselves, when a VERY well noted Religious Studier (or whatever it's called) acknowledges it's existance). | |
EXGuo wrote:
You are silly. Jesus is real, and He walks among us! Oh wow! He does exists! Maybe he can show us the way of the SPIRITUAL ENERGY | |
Yea, what they can't prove themselves can't be proven or disproven by anyone because it's spritual babble.
| |
Popisfizzy wrote:
The historians would have to be trustring that the bible is entirely true (and with some of the stuff in their, they'd have to be a little nuts to do so). Even that I agree about. I personally believe Christianity to be nothing but a crock full of Bull **** due to one thing: It's bible was OFFICIALLY (although not proven to be) penned by his Two Disciples, one of which wrote a more 'pure' less 'sinful' version, and the one we use today in different revisions, which is crock full of lies. | |
"To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it, requires brains." - Mary Pettibone Poole
| |
EXGuo wrote:
"To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it, requires brains." - Mary Pettibone Poole I challenge a lot thank you. However what I know is that Kinetic energy isn't enough to have created this existance, and there must, and obviously is, a finer level of energy than the energy of movement. That level must, and has to be, Spiritual Energy (as it's dubbed). And until someone can prove otherwise (which no-one here can, and there's absolutely no way anyone here with a brain can believe that Kinetic energy truly is the finest level) I am sticking to my guns. | |
Okay, it's obvious you know nothing about physics whatsoever. Read up on the Big Bang and try and figure out how the universe came into being.
| |
Popisfizzy wrote:
Okay, it's obvious you know nothing about physics whatsoever. Read up on the Big Bang and try and figure out how the universe came into being. Two theories: One: Giant omnipresence makes earth and all beings Two: An imbalance between matter and anti-matter comes out with more matter, thereby creating existence. Pick your side. | |
Shlaklava wrote:
Popisfizzy wrote: I obviously go for the latter, however even then it doesn't disprove spiritual energy. | |
Latoma wrote:
Shlaklava wrote: When was this spiritual energy created in your opinion then? There is barely anything to go on in the first place to predict either event. *Fires Spiritual energy out of his bum* | |
Shlaklava wrote:
Latoma wrote: *Raises up a sign with an arrow pointing towards Shlak with the words MORON nice and bold for everyone to see.* | |
Uh, it's more like the Big Bang creates space, time, matter, and energy (the two latter being redundant as they are the same thing, but it's best to specify), and for an unknown reason more matter is sustained than antimatter. Antimatter still exists, and is created all the time, along with a matter counterpart (look up "virtual particles").
| |
It is on you to prove something. Saying that we can't prove that it doesn't exist is not how proof works. I can say that since you can't prove that I'm not God, then I surely must be God. Or, I could claim that since you can't prove I rule the world by pure will, and that all things serve my purpose, then surely I must be the ruler of the world. You can't prove it's not true, so it must be true.
~x | |
Xooxer wrote:
It is on you to prove something. Saying that we can't prove that it doesn't exist is not how proof works. I can say that since you can't prove that I'm not God, then I surely must be God. Or, I could claim that since you can't prove I rule the world by pure will, and that all things serve my purpose, then surely I must be the ruler of the world. You can't prove it's not true, so it must be true. ...Excuse me you just made me have a brain fart. | |
That is a good point in itself. However it's amazing then how we do know so much about him (namely how did historians know he never travelled more than 90 miles away from his home).