Politics & Stuff

[OhForAGreavsie 6,077]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

No i liked your honest answer. 

This is not the first time I heard of something similar about the Gospel. 

But they forget one thing most of those coming with all these theory. Anything that is recorded in the gospel, 90% of it is nothing new. In fact majority of these things was written long before the gospel or Jesus appeared. They was written in the Torah and prophets. Which today we would called the old testament. The old testament "prophesied" about the coming time of Jesus and his works. 

Many of the writings of the old testament go way beyond the Roman empire ever existed. In fact the "prophecy" I mentioned about Jesus second coming, majority of it as well come from the old testament. Jesus quotes even from the book of Daniel an old Testament prophecy. 

So that's one mistake they don't realize. 

Second after the Roman empire disbursed the Jewish nation, many people believed that God had forsaken their people the Jews. In fact that's when "replacement theology" emerge. That the "church" had replaced Israel and that god no longer cared about the Jewish people. That belief was very strong till say 1948 when Israel was formed as a nation in one day. Then this theory had to be discarded because it was clear that god was not done with the Jews, and in fact the old testament had many prophecies of this event that was a mystery for many people. 

And thirdly the life of Jesus and crucifixion is attested by many historians, not just in the gospel. Flavius Josephus a famous Jewish historian makes reference of Jesus the man. Mind you the Jews don't believe in Jesus, and they have no reason to report anything about him. There's other like Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Lucian and much more. 

That being said history does shows that Jesus existed. Now the debated point is not that he existed or was crucified, but did he actually rose from the dead as the gospel mentions? Well that is for another talk. 

Ah, OK. Thank you.

 An interesting reply.

In fact the "Titus" argument takes full account of the old Testament. If you are fully conversant with it I won't waste your time, but, if you would find it useful, I will post a link to a YouTube video in which the argument is set out in detail. Let me know.

I dispute your claim that there is historical proof for the existence of Jesus. There is not, but never mind my viewpoint. The claim would also be disputed by many academics. For example Josephus is not a good source. Some of his supposed writing concerning Jesus, and there isn't much of it, is almost universally accepted to have been forged. In any case he has no original sources to rely on and merely reports what he has been told by third parties. His writing contains no independent corroboration and no attempt at any.  Tacitus is better in that he seems to be writing more independently and with an undeniable belief in the truth of what he relates particularly with reference to the crucifixion. He makes mistakes which lay him open to the question however and, given that he was writing about 70 years after the events and focusing his attention on period roughly 30 years after the events, he has that same problem with sources. No historical records exist, none, which can unquestionably be said to prove that Jesus is an historical figure.

That said, I personally do believe that Jesus lived. Although, I repeat, this is not because I accept any so-called historical evidence. Rather I infer it from what has grown out of his life. The argument goes that there is not likely to have been all this fuss had there not been a real man to base it on. I therefore accept that a rabbi called Jesus (or the Aramaic equivalent) once taught in Palestine. That's about it however in regards to what I believe about Jesus. :-)

[Spike 12,049]

I like how we live in bizarro post-Obama parallel-timeline and my proof is David Duke supporting Keith Ellison.

[Spike 12,049]

12 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

His dad christened him Jesus Christ Allin, thought he'd be the messiah

http://www.theladbible.com/now/weird-gg-allin-the-man-shat-himself-on-stage-and-smeared-it-on-his-face-20170213

I guess his infamy didn't really reach the UK. He is pretty famous stateside.

[Fernando 6,585]

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Ah, OK. Thank you.

 An interesting reply.

In fact the "Titus" argument takes full account of the old Testament. If you are fully conversant with it I won't waste your time, but, if you would find it useful, I will post a link to a YouTube video in which the argument is set out in detail. Let me know.

I dispute your claim that there is historical proof for the existence of Jesus. There is not, but never mind my viewpoint. The claim would also be disputed by many academics. For example Josephus is not a good source. Some of his supposed writing concerning Jesus, and there isn't much of it, is almost universally accepted to have been forged. In any case he has no original sources to rely on and merely reports what he has been told by third parties. His writing contains no independent corroboration and no attempt at any.  Tacitus is better in that he seems to be writing more independently and with an undeniable belief in the truth of what he relates particularly with reference to the crucifixion. He makes mistakes which lay him open to the question however and, given that he was writing about 70 years after the events and focusing his attention on period roughly 30 years after the events, he has that same problem with sources. No historical records exist, none, which can unquestionably be said to prove that Jesus is an historical figure.

That said, I personally do believe that Jesus lived. Although, I repeat, this is not because I accept any so-called historical evidence. Rather I infer it from what has grown out of his life. The argument goes that there is not likely to have been all this fuss had there not been a real man to base it on. I therefore accept that a rabbi called Jesus (or the Aramaic equivalent) once taught in Palestine. That's about it however in regards to what I believe about Jesus. :-)

Please do share. I want to see what they are talking about in detail. 

[OhForAGreavsie 6,077]

4 hours ago, Fernando said:

Please do share. I want to see what they are talking about in detail. 

Gladly, but be warned that for "detailed" you should read "long". The video lasts nearly 3 hours but you did ask. :-)

I wonder if you would do something for me in return please? Do you know of any material which argues from your side of the case? Something which perhaps debunks the Titus storyline, or else any material which you would recommend me to view/read? It seems only fair that if you are going to put in three hours investigating the claims of those who take an opposite view to your own, that I should be prepared to take up a similar challenge. :-)

The link:-

 

[Fernando 6,585]

4 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Gladly, but be warned that for "detailed" you should read "long". The video lasts nearly 3 hours but you did ask. :-)

I wonder if you would do something for me in return please? Do you know of any material which argues from your side of the case? Something which perhaps debunks the Titus storyline, or else any material which you would recommend me to view/read? It seems only fair that if you are going to put in three hours investigating the claims of those who take an opposite view to your own, that I should be prepared to take up a similar challenge. :-)

The link:-

 

Okay I'll get back to you tomorrow. Because I will watch this after work. 

And there is material but I need to see first what is that they are trying to say so I can know what to give you. 

So let me see what is this about. 

Thanks 

[OhForAGreavsie 6,077]

16 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Okay I'll get back to you tomorrow. Because I will watch this after work. 

And there is material but I need to see first what is that they are trying to say so I can know what to give you. 

So let me see what is this about. 

Thanks 

Great plan, thank you.

Good news: In order to prepare myself so that I might be able make informed comment on any observations you'll have, I re watched the linked programme earlier and was reminded of something I had forgotten. The posted video repeats the same content, so in fact there is less than 90 minutes worth that you'll need to view.

[Fernando 6,585]

5 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Great plan, thank you.

Good news: In order to prepare myself so that I might be able make informed comment on any observations you'll have, I re watched the linked programme earlier and was reminded of something I had forgotten. The posted video repeats the same content, so in fact there is less than 90 minutes worth that you'll need to view.

Actually there is a program I can share with you. Is a christian apologetic show. They talk about all these issues with top professional. 

Since I realize the talk about is the validity of the bible, if what we have written is true and all that stuff. 

Well you can start here: They are programs of 30 minutes each. So it's more like 25 minutes each since they have a couple of minutes of info about books and such.

 

 

 

[KevinAshburner 1,270]

here is a website on is DJT is still President.

IS DONALD TRUMP STILL PRESIDENT?

http://www.isdonaldtrumpstillpresident.com/

[Fernando 6,585]

19 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Gladly, but be warned that for "detailed" you should read "long". The video lasts nearly 3 hours but you did ask. :-)

I wonder if you would do something for me in return please? Do you know of any material which argues from your side of the case? Something which perhaps debunks the Titus storyline, or else any material which you would recommend me to view/read? It seems only fair that if you are going to put in three hours investigating the claims of those who take an opposite view to your own, that I should be prepared to take up a similar challenge. :-)

The link:-

 

I think it's very superficial. They make a lot of mistakes. 

First they refused to acknowledge the testimony of the apostles. The video I sent you already covered this. How the apostle Paul gives us a great witness. Paul was a persecutor of the church of christ but he was converted and end up giving his life for that he persecuted. As the video also mentioned the gospel have women as the first eye witness of Jesus resurrection. This would be nonsense since in that day women voice was not taken into consideration. So someone making up a story would not go this way. 

Second as the video I sent you that the apostle had a consistent core theology that was preached during Jesus ministry all the way to the last book of the revelation. Furthermore you have the church fathers that was the disciples of the disciples. Examples the disciples of John, Peter etc etc. They also had a common core theology until a certain time. 

Now that certain time is the important thing where your video mix everything. It is known that in church father history everything was common. The ideas was the same of those of the apostles of Jesus Christ, what we have in the new testaments. This time is known as the "ante nicene fathers". It's roughly from the time of christ death till like 300 and change ad. After this period of time things changed, and the councils that met started to distort the core theology.

It's from this turn of events that the rise of what would be Roman Catholicism emerge. Roman catholicism is the merging of Christianity with paganism. This is where you get things like Easter, Christmas and all that. Holidays which originally was not Christian. So this is the event that they screw up by mixing from what the apostles wrote to what Roman Empire later did. 

And last their take on the old testament is very poor indeed. Because they are mixing testament with gnostic Gospel. And this was a very important point I made originally. During Jesus time and during the time of the apostles there was no new testament! All that they had to rely on was what the old testament said. In fact you couldn't come up with a new testament that totally contradict the old testament. That's a big clue into why many gnostic Gospel where not used. Paul couldn't contradict what was written in the old testament. If it said in the beginning God created the heaven in the earth then that is what we would start with. You couldn't come up with a gospel that said "in the beginning Sophia created everything and made lesser beings to be god". You would be considered a heretic. So they failed to realize that Christianity is Jewish in nature. Messiah was Jewish, the first apostles and converts was Jewish. It is a very Jewish narrative and we the non Jewish have been grafted in to this old Jewish family under Jesus. 

 

[Spike 12,049]

On 2/11/2017 at 5:09 PM, Fulham Broadway said:

Jim Jefferies telling Piers Morgan to fuck off

 

That was horrible, mate. Jim Jeffries is only popular over seas. It's like giving the mic to the first cockney cunt you run into on the streets of London. No talent bogan and makes me ashamed of Australians. Not only that he is full of shit. He old routine used to tear fucking strips off Muslims.

Piers Morgan is a cunt but he is right and I hate myself for saying that.

[kmk108 1,186]

I think Jim Jeffries is one of the best comedians around.

Comedians will say things on stage that are meant to get a rise out of people. They don't always believe in it. He even had a whole bit in his last special about being called out for making Cosby jokes.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

3 hours ago, Spike said:

That was horrible, mate. Jim Jeffries is only popular over seas. It's like giving the mic to the first cockney cunt you run into on the streets of London. No talent bogan and makes me ashamed of Australians. Not only that he is full of shit. He old routine used to tear fucking strips off Muslims.

Piers Morgan is a cunt but he is right and I hate myself for saying that.

How is Jim Jeffries funny? If he says what he says on stage in an American accent he'd probably be thrown in a mental institute.....

[Fulham Broadway 17,333]

Never heard of Jim Jefferies but telling phone hacker Morgan to fuck off is superb. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson but hats off to him he actually punched Arsenal fan Morgan.

[Spike 12,049]

11 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

How is Jim Jeffries funny? If he says what he says on stage in an American accent he'd probably be thrown in a mental institute.....

He isn't. His character is literally just a white-trash Australian you can find at every single pub in the country. If you like Larry the Cable Guy, this fella is the same thing.

 

13 hours ago, kmk108 said:

I think Jim Jeffries is one of the best comedians around.

Comedians will say things on stage that are meant to get a rise out of people. They don't always believe in it. He even had a whole bit in his last special about being called out for making Cosby jokes.

Bill Cosby is a nigger kike that rapes white women while the nigger ex-president holds them down. Inshallah, brothers fuck the white man and the kikes; darkies need to be castrated. Allahu akbar.

 Where is my paycheque, lads?

[Spike 12,049]

Islamic Extremist bombing in Pakistan; 60 dead and over 200 injured.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/asia/pakistan-shrine-bombing/index.html

The attack was on a Sufi shrine, are Muslims their own greatest enemy? 

[kmk108 1,186]

30 minutes ago, Spike said:

He isn't. His character is literally just a white-trash Australian you can find at every single pub in the country. If you like Larry the Cable Guy, this fella is the same thing.

 

Bill Cosby is a nigger kike that rapes white women while the nigger ex-president holds them down. Inshallah, brothers fuck the white man and the kikes; darkies need to be castrated. Allahu akbar.

 Where is my paycheque, lads?

Yep...totally the same thing...

 

[kmk108 1,186]

17 minutes ago, Spike said:

Islamic Extremist bombing in Pakistan; 60 dead and over 200 injured.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/asia/pakistan-shrine-bombing/index.html

The attack was on a Sufi shrine, are Muslims their own greatest enemy? 

Risen to 75 

[Leif 6,006]

The majority of Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc, are too passive to really be passionate & to-a-T regarding their faith; obviously because more often than not these days, they've just been following mum/dad's orders & found it easier to play along and call themselves whatever faith they are, than be scolded for otherwise. There's also a lot of perks to going along with this; you get a large community of 'friends' to an extent who you've never even met, special holidays, some decent philisophical teachings. So it's not OK to paint Muslims in general as dangerous; because the majority are no different from the rest of us.

However, there are a portion of people who choose by themselves to follow certain faiths. And what I want to say is, that out of those people, out of the passionate die-hard believers who chose this path, it's only Muslims killing thousands of people. The passionate Christians who take texts from their faith literally are not for the most part, instigating murder. Neither are Jews who take their teachings literally, Buddhists, and so on. But I'd say the majority of Muslims who take their historic texts literally, do indeed harbor a dangerous energy which more or less stands as "Be one of us, or be less than us."

It cannot be ignored then that when we evaluate the 'radical' portion of believers of each religion, Islam beyond tenfold is producing murderers & rapists. None of my 'Muslim' acquaintances fall into this bracket though, they're all, soft&fuzzy Muslims who're only on this path because it makes life easier for the reasons I said above. There is also a small portion of self-decided Muslims who are very intelligent people and know that not all texts & teachings should be gospel, but again, in comparison to other religions the figures are scary when you compare the rational vs. the irrational. At this point I'd say, the majority of Western Muslims are completely lovely people with no danger inside of them, but I feel for the sake of themselves and for the earth, they need to distance themselves aggressively from the old teachings of Islam & the current Eastern Muslims (for the most part; again, I've seen fine examples on this forum of lovely Muslims from Asia), and rebrand themselves essentially as Muslims mk2. 

It's like there's 2 types of Muslim just as there's 2 types of communism; the clean Marx kind, and then the butchered Stalin kind. The latter needs eradicated, because it's a dangerous cult fueled by misunderstanding.

[Spike 12,049]

 

1 hour ago, kmk108 said:

Yep...totally the same thing...

 

Yeah, except I never said it was the same thing. Any comedian should be pushing the envelope and doing so isn't a sign of talent, it is the bare minimum. I've said it once, I'll say it again, he is only popular internationally because you'll find the same shit any pub in Australia. He sells a stereotype that foreigners aren't accustomed to.

The way he speaks in the Piers Morgan video is literally how Australians speak, there isn't any funny about it, there is no nuance, there is no subtlety, he isn't even satirising Australians.