It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I have also spoken to some muslims as well.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because the primary sources are biased and all seem to bend over backwards
to please the muslims.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The bible isn't evidence of Jesus' existence, regardless of whenever certain passages were written.


There in lies your ignorance. The Bible is most definitely a historical document. Just because you don't want to believe what it says doesn't change the fact that it is much more reliable as a historical text based on the science of textual criticism. The issue here is not a lack of evidence but a stubborn persons refusal to accept the evidence. Why don't you give me some evidence for Jesus's non-existence? Oh wait because we don't have one source from the first century that says Jesus was a myth created by psychos. Not even the hostile sources say that he wasn't a real person so quit throwing out fallacious information with your anti-theistic agenda...



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because the primary sources are biased and all seem to bend over backwards
to please the muslims.


The primary source being the Quran is biased towards Muslims? You don't say...



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The bible isn't evidence of Jesus' existence, regardless of whenever certain passages were written.


There in lies your ignorance. The Bible is most definitely a historical document.


Which parts are historical exactly? I'd really like to know. No one seems to know what parts actually happened and which parts are allegories/metaphors.


Just because you don't want to believe what it says doesn't change the fact that it is much more reliable as a historical text based on the science of textual criticism.


Actually I don't believe it is true based on evidence analysis and the fact that much of the claims inside the book contradict the laws of physics, but ok.


The issue here is not a lack of evidence but a stubborn persons refusal to accept the evidence. Why don't you give me some evidence for Jesus's non-existence? Oh wait because we don't have one source from the first century that says Jesus was a myth created by psychos.


Oh please. We both know that you cannot prove a negative. Plus it's not my duty to prove your claims, AND I'm not making the claim he was invented either to deceive people. There are tons of plausible accounts that could explain the origin of the jesus story. Maybe he was multiple people that got rounded up into one person. Maybe he was just a political activist whose cult of personality got so warped that he became a god viewed by his followers. Maybe he really WAS a conspiracy written by the government. The thing is there is so little information about jesus outside of the bible that we can't know for sure anything about him and the bible isn't trustworthy because we don't know what is real or isn't real within it.


Not even the hostile sources say that he wasn't a real person so quit throwing out fallacious information with your anti-theistic agenda...


Negative. There are plenty of sources that question Jesus being a real person.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The bible isn't evidence of Jesus' existence, regardless of whenever certain passages were written.


There in lies your ignorance. The Bible is most definitely a historical document. Just because you don't want to believe what it says doesn't change the fact that it is much more reliable as a historical text based on the science of textual criticism. The issue here is not a lack of evidence but a stubborn persons refusal to accept the evidence. Why don't you give me some evidence for Jesus's non-existence? Oh wait because we don't have one source from the first century that says Jesus was a myth created by psychos. Not even the hostile sources say that he wasn't a real person so quit throwing out fallacious information with your anti-theistic agenda...


It all fails when you just take any parts of bible and analyze it, for example - God created 2 great lights, sun and moon - and we today know that moon itself is not light, but reflections, and that there are billions upon billions other lights... So, your 'historical document' seems to be very wrong?!



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

As is Quran



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dollukka

Correct. But the Quran also has some scientific truths in it such as mountains having roots and such. Not because it is true, just later and in a time more close to our scientific understanding of the world.

Either way, the negation of another religions validity does not suddenly make the Bible a fully valid documentation of History, does it?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was talking about news sources.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

And I was talking about primary sources. Thought I made that clear? Do you happen to know what a primary source is by any chance?
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

Neither of them Quran nor Bible are perfect. What we read from them is how people in those era saw World around them. You can´t deny some of stories have accuracy but is written the way people saw the World.

Let´s take a look of Sodoma and Gomorra for example. There are geographical proof that asteroid hit the Köfels in alps from direction which was recorded by assyrian in a clay disc and debris after hit flew back in same direction it came from and people of Sodoma and Gomorra and other towns in that direction were destroyed by heavenly fire. This hit produced so much debris than it is also recorded in ice samples around the World and reason why Sahara came a desert.

What people saw was Wrath of God
edit on 18-12-2015 by dollukka because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Which parts are historical exactly? I'd really like to know. No one seems to know what parts actually happened and which parts are allegories/metaphors.


That would have to be determined on a case by case basis and there are 66 documents. You have to examine the historical context, the grammatical context, the genre of the text, the audience of the text all of these are things we take into account when reading any other text why would the documents of the Bible be any different...




Actually I don't believe it is true based on evidence analysis and the fact that much of the claims inside the book contradict the laws of physics, but ok.


I don't reject a document based on supernatural claims. That would be a philosophical bias. I am ok with natural or supernatural explanations. I don't reject Zeus and Thor and Bast because they are of supernatural origins I reject them based on logical flaws in the mythologies or religion. Christianity is also whole unique in that God dies for the redemption of mankind.




Oh please. We both know that you cannot prove a negative


This goes to show that you have never actually studied logic. There is not one professional logician who thinks that you cannot prove a negative. This is a popular myth started by people who preyed on public ignorance. I can very easily prove to you that pineapples are not non-existence. That would be proving a negative.




Maybe he was multiple people that got rounded up into one person.


There is not one example of such a thing occurring in history 20-50 years after a mans life and there are definitely no records of real people being supernaturally embellished 3-8 years after they died except for Jesus.




Maybe he was just a political activist whose cult of personality got so warped that he became a god viewed by his followers.


Except his followers claimed to have seen him risen from the dead. The only options are they were lying ,delusional, or they were telling the truth. The evidence best supports that they were telling the truth. Regardless if he was just a political activist that would still show that he existed and if he existed there is no reason to think he wasn't crucified.




Negative. There are plenty of sources that question Jesus being a real person.


Lets see 'em.




The thing is there is so little information about jesus outside of the bible that we can't know for sure anything about him and the bible isn't trustworthy because we don't know what is real or isn't real within it.


What we do have can establish four facts. He lived, he was crucified under pontius pilate, he was buried, and his followers died for the claim that they saw him physically resurrected from the dead.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dollukka

In my view it was no such thing but your beliefs are your beliefs, I arent refuting that part.
I just wanted to point out that nobody is claiming Islam is better than Christianity so there is no need to comment about it being flawed in the same ways of other religions. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, hell even now its been proved that the Indian texts about Krishna, all use some truth usually in the form of history or stories from elder groups.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The original claim about Jesus dying on a cross has many people in doubt due to the fact the Romans did not use crucifixion as a death sentence or punishment for nearly 160 years after Christ, but if I'm honest I do believe a man died on a pole, used by the Romans of the period, and his name was Jesus/Isa. I do not believe he was divine, nor that there is any contemporary evidence for him as it all comes from a good century later, but still, I believe the Man Jesus existed.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That would have to be determined on a case by case basis and there are 66 documents. You have to examine the historical context, the grammatical context, the genre of the text, the audience of the text all of these are things we take into account when reading any other text why would the documents of the Bible be any different...


Really? I don't read history literature on a "case-by-case" basis. Historical books are either true or they aren't. I shouldn't need a degree to know what is and isn't true in a book I'm reading about history. So you are off to a bad start here.


I don't reject a document based on supernatural claims. That would be a philosophical bias. I am ok with natural or supernatural explanations. I don't reject Zeus and Thor and Bast because they are of supernatural origins I reject them based on logical flaws in the mythologies or religion. Christianity is also whole unique in that God dies for the redemption of mankind.


Well it's unfortunate that you believe in magic, but that doesn't make you correct here.


This goes to show that you have never actually studied logic. There is not one professional logician who thinks that you cannot prove a negative. This is a popular myth started by people who preyed on public ignorance. I can very easily prove to you that pineapples are not non-existence. That would be proving a negative.


It's called burden of proof and you don't prove non-existence.


There is not one example of such a thing occurring in history 20-50 years after a mans life and there are definitely no records of real people being supernaturally embellished 3-8 years after they died except for Jesus.


False. There have DEFINITELY been cases of people being embellished to absurd degrees several years after they've died.


Except his followers claimed to have seen him risen from the dead. The only options are they were lying ,delusional, or they were telling the truth. The evidence best supports that they were telling the truth. Regardless if he was just a political activist that would still show that he existed and if he existed there is no reason to think he wasn't crucified.


You pinpointed it. Maybe they were lying. Now you are starting to see the cracks in your argument.



Lets see 'em.


Ok.
Articles:
Proof of Jesus Christ? 7 Pieces of Evidence Debated
5 Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed

Books:
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth


What we do have can establish four facts. He lived, he was crucified under pontius pilate, he was buried, and his followers died for the claim that they saw him physically resurrected from the dead.


Yes, that's all in the bible. Now prove that actually happened.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

Let's stop this non sense now. Isa is not Yeshua Hamashiach

Let's throw a little gasoline on this fire. Watch and learn.




edit on 18-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Excuse me, you insult an actual scholar of World Religion and claim i am spewing nonesense, with a youtube video? I could just as easily post a video of a speech by ANY well versed student of World Religion and refute your claim, but is there need? I rarely get offended on the internet but i will NOT have my study called nonesense then justified by a computer voiced youtube video making spurious links, it is as bad as the 'Buddha was Jesus' myth touted by new agers.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: infolurker

Excuse me, you insult an actual scholar of World Religion and claim i am spewing nonesense, with a youtube video? I could just as easily post a video of a speech by ANY well versed student of World Religion and refute your claim, but is there need? I rarely get offended on the internet but i will NOT have my study called nonesense then justified by a computer voiced youtube video making spurious links, it is as bad as the 'Buddha was Jesus' myth touted by new agers.


?

Who is the scholar I am insulting?

Try watching it and then feel free to dispute it if you can.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mamabeth

And I was talking about primary sources. Thought I made that clear? Do you happen to know what a primary source is by any chance?


Ahh,now I know what you're talking about YOUR primary source being the quran
and MINE news sources, Bible classes and books other than the quran.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I watched and disputed it in one sentance by pointing out the spurious links, Baal is just one of the old world gods the tribes of the ME worshipped, before Isam and the usage of the term Allah, taken from the Chrisian tribe as the word for 'The one God' worshipped by both Jewry and Christendom at the time. I'm watching the second one now, apologies I only just saw it now.


Before i go on though, are you seriosuly disputing the known and accepted consensus by Rabbis, Priests, Imams and also the none-religious students of the subject, with YouTube videos?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join