Greatest persuasive writer/speaker of all time?

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

So you dont believe Jesus existed but you do believe the individuals who authored a book containing his words did? would Jesus still be non-existent in your world if he taught philosophy? im pretty sure he would, would you believe Aristotle existed if he taught the same thing as Jesus did? this leaves me to one question, why dont you believe Jesus existed? was it because he is believed to be the 'son of God' or God in the Flesh?

Read that first sentence/question to yourself again & ask yourself if it makes sense. If you're saying I believe Jesus Christ never existed, then how can you say I believe he spoke? Or do you put forth that I believe Jesus Christ spoke without words?

And stop trying to goad me into discussing things which are irrelevant (both in that you're asking me redundant - already answered - questions & that the details of my opinions matter not). Also, please refrain from making assumptions - I find it hard to take you seriously when you continue to carpet bomb your foot.

 

[TecK NeeX]

It seems like you're confusing and contradicting yourself at the same time. the first sentence in my post makes complete sence to me. The bible does contain Jesus' words in mark mathew luke and jon, which is why im having a problem with you not having a problem with mc chills post. lets start this discussion by asking do you believe Jesus existed? If yes then what about him dont you believe existed? If no then what are you basing this belief on?

 

[Jokerman]

I'm getting tired of this debate which isn't getting anywhere because Calcuo is playing debating games here instead of re-stating what he means, thus continuing this debate indefinitely.

What I think he means is that whoever wrote the Gospels are the ones who should get the credit for being persuasive writers, if anyone to do with Christianity should. And since he's not denying their existence, even though the writers of the Gospels are preaching faith and belief in God, TecK's claim that he is rejecting the existence of Jesus solely because of that fact, is incorrect.

What he's saying is that the existence of Jesus Christ is not a fact. That someone who was known as Jesus Christ in his lifetime and said the things the writers of the Gospels say he said, is not a fact and most likely did not say those things, let alone was the son of God. He is not necessarily rejecting the existence of a man who might have been known as Yeshua and who was a teacher with disciples. He's just saying that's about all we can be reasonably sure about him. If you read his posts, he does say or imply all this.

I hope that clears nothing up. :thumb:

 

[Morris]

Another thing to keep in mind when discussing the Gospels is that the 4 of them used at the very least 3 distinct, different sources for their story.

 

[TecK NeeX]

even though the writers of the Gospels are preaching faith and belief in God, TecK's claim that he is rejecting the existence of Jesus solely because of that fact, is incorrect.

what makes you say this? I dont believe they preached anything since the words in the bible are believed to be that of Christ by christians, If I came upon a buddhist man who can't write and asked for my writing skills to help the old man make a book carrying his teachings would that make me a preacher of the buddhist faith as well? i dont think so

If Jesus' existence is not a fact then neither is Jons, Marks, Lukes and Mathews, and St paul for that matter, and the thousands perhaps millions of past writers who have nothing but books to prove their existence

 

[Jokerman]

what makes you say this? I dont believe they preached anything since the words in the bible are believed to be that of Christ by christians

But NOT by CalcuoCuchicheo! since he's not a Christian (or practising one, I guess). That's his whole point, and what I was trying to clear up. But, anyway, even if the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels might have been the words of Yeshua, that's not all the words written in the gospels. There are also words of faith and witness written by the gospel writers, and therefore, preaching.

If Jesus' existence is not a fact then neither is Jons, Marks, Lukes and Mathews, and St paul for that matter, and the thousands perhaps millions of past writers who have nothing but books to prove their existence

In fact, though we call the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we are not sure who wrote any of them. The author of Mark did not begin his gospel by writing "The Gospel According to Mark" at the top. Names were not assigned to these wrtings until sometime in the second century. So, yes, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's existence is not a fact per se, only the existence of some writers (perhaps more than one for each book) known to the early christian community who did write those books, and copied from each other, and other sources (as Morris pointed out). So they did not exist in the same way Jesus did not exist. Somebody existed but those probably weren't their names, and everything contained in any one gospel might not even have come from one person. That's the point Calcuo is making about Jesus, which seems to be beyond some of you to grasp.

 

[AmerikazMost]

So all this about what his actual name was? Holy shit. God, Allah. Jesus, Yeshua. Stereo, radio. Car, automobile. They're all the same entity/person/thing.

Alright, Calc, just for you...

The most persuasive speaker of all time was the man who preached throughout the Middle East with twelve disciples

 

[TecK NeeX]

But NOT by CalcuoCuchicheo! since he's not a Christian (or practising one, I guess). That's his whole point, and what I was trying to clear up

well i think its laughable to say these words are not that of this person simply because there is no evidence that he actually said them, and the argument that he is not a follower of that particular faith gives him the idea that the person believed to have said them are not really his words is rediculous, does this apply only to christianity or religious books?

I'm not a follower of the sikh faith for example does this mean i have the right to say the words found in the Sikh scripture are not those of the Gurus or that they did not exist because there is no other evidence to support they ever existed besides their scripture? is this what you're trying to make me grasp what calcuo is trying to say?

There are millions of other books written by writers in the past before and after christ that have claimed to have written them but have absolutely no evidence whatsoever except for these books to support their claim, are all of these writer's existence not a fact as well? there is no evidence supporting Julius ceaser ever lived is his existence not a fact?

if thats what he believes than pretty much everything before the invention of Camera is nothing but theories, since there is only text to prove this person or this event ever lived or took place

what im trying to get at here is his belief that the words in the bible are not that of Christ simply because there is no evidence supporting this applys only to the Bible? id like him to answer this for me

 

[Jokerman]

So all this about what his actual name was?

Nooo! It's what the name Jesus Christ means. What it stands for. There is no evidence that what that name stands for, or has come to mean, or is portrayed in the gospels, actually existed. So we don't know if "the most persuasive speaker of all time was the man who preached throughout the Middle East with twelve disciples." Why can't ppl get this?

 

[Jokerman]

does this apply only to christianity or religious books?

It applies to any thing that is believed by faith that has no evidence to support it, and in fact, has evidence to not support it.

 

[Jokerman]

I'm not a follower of the sikh faith for example does this mean i have the right to say the words found in the Sikh scripture are not those of the Gurus or that they did not exist because there is no other evidence to support they ever existed besides their scripture?

Is anyone calling the Gurus gods or sons of God? If yes, then no, the Gurus might have existed, but the Gurus as gods did not without real evidence. And case in point is Julius Caesar. He called himself a god. Do you believe he was? Why not? Julius Caesar the Emperor existed. Julius Caesar the god did not. Yeshua probably existed; Jesus Christ, and what that name has come to mean, did not based on evidence alone and not faith.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Is anyone calling the Gurus gods or sons of God? If yes, then no, the Gurus might have existed, but the Gurus as gods did not without real evidence. And case in point is Julius Caesar. He called himself a god. Do you believe he was? Why not? Julius Caesar the Emperor existed. Julius Caesar the god did not. Yeshua probably existed; Jesus Christ, and what that name has come to mean, did not based on evidence alone and not faith.

If thats all he's saying that the man yeshua existed but the song of God or God in the flesh yeshua did not than i dont disagree with him, infact i agree with him, i dont believe jesus was the son of God nor do i believe he was God in flesh. I do however believe that yeshua/Isa/Jesus did exist and palyed a major role during his time in the middle east.

I was arguing the fact that he said if there is no evidence proving a persons existence besides words than his existence is not fact, and if this was applied to Jesus alone or all who existed back in the day who have nothing to prove they ever existed other than books. if im mistaken than will you please forgive me jokerman?


edit: and i dont believe julius ever claimed he was God, unless you show me concrete evidence that he actually said this i dont believe it

 

[Jokerman]

will you please forgive me jokerman?

"Jokerman" does not exist; it's a name on a board. But I will forgive you.


But, yeah, the problem is not with believing the existence of anyone who we only have been told about; the problem is with the existence of someone if claims are made for them that are not made for anyone else with no evidence.

And I wish Calou would get in here already and do his own debating. Maybe he no longer exists.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

And I wish Calou would get in here already and do his own debating. Maybe he no longer exists.

You get a B for spelling here but an A for reading & understanding for the thread as a whole.

I was arguing the fact that he said if there is no evidence proving a persons existence besides words than his existence is not fact

Whoa, I'd like to see you try & quote me on this.


And I do find it a bit odd that Jokerman grasped what the stance I subscribe to on the matter was (something that has been relayed numerous times - in this thread & elsewhere, & not only by myself) & yet, both TecK NeeX & AmerikazMost seem to be completely confounded.

Jokerman is partially right when he says I was playing "debate games". I knew certain aspects of my posts would provoke a specific reaction from you two but that was through understanding the poverty of your understanding rather than through any intention of lengthening the debate.

 

[Jokerman]

and i dont believe julius ever claimed he was God, unless you show me concrete evidence that he actually said this i dont believe it

Not only did he claim to be a god, but Julius Caesar was in fact Jesus! Look at this foolishness:

http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

 

[TecK NeeX]

Whoa, I'd like to see you try & quote me on this.

Well when you compared Jesus' life to the tooth fairy and fiction i kinda got the impression that you dont believe the man existed

I knew certain aspects of my posts would provoke a specific reaction from you two .

Right, becuase you somehow knew id be making my first post from about a month off from this board on the exact day when you and amerikasmost went at it,

the words in Jokerman's article on Ceaser being Jesus or God are more believable than yours :thumb:

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Well when you compared Jesus' life to the tooth fairy and fiction i kinda got the impression that you dont believe the man existed

Damn, now I can only think that you're being intentionally foolish for some bizarre reason or you really are slow.

However, I am open to suggestions such as, perhaps you are intelligent beyond my comprehension & this is why you can derive the following from my not believing in the existence of the character Jesus Christ:

I was arguing the fact that he said if there is no evidence proving a persons existence besides words than his existence is not fact

Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion. (Edit: The conclusion above. Wait, maybe arrows help ^^^^^^^)

Right, becuase you somehow knew id be making my first post from about a month off from this board on the exact day when you and amerikasmost went at it,

*sighs*
You really know how to test someone's patience, don't you?

I'll do you this one time favour & break it down - in regards to yourself - in the most simplified way I can come up with: I (CalcuoCuchicheo) was involved in a little debate (in this thread, entitled "Greatest persuasive writer/speaker of all time?")with another poster (AmerikazMost) & then you (TecK NeeX) decided to enter the debate. When answering your comments (that is, your posts TecK NeeX) I understood your train of thought (what you were saying & what your thinking was) & then made comments which would provoke a certain reaction.

Simple enough? I think so.

the words in Jokerman's article on Ceaser being Jesus or God are more believable than yours :thumb:

Yeah, nice comment. :thumb:

Now I don't know if you ever were a good poster, but I can say that right now you are not making a good case for any image to the contrary.

 

[TecK NeeX]

However, I am open to suggestions such as, perhaps you are intelligent beyond my comprehension :

Now those words I can call fact.

this is why you can derive the following from my not believing in the existence of the character Jesus Christ

Yes you have in fact said on numerous occasions that you dont believe in the existence of the 'character' Jesus Christ, The character painted on Jesus Christ was him being the 'son of God'. Unless you believe in fictional or imaginary characters then you dont believe in the existence of Jesus' character

Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion. (Edit: The conclusion above. Wait, maybe arrows help ^^^^^^^)

Maybe i did somehow misread your earlier posts, however, you did leave the possibilty for one to come to the same conclusion i did with your repeated denial of pretty much everything the man did or said, like your 'prove to me jesus said this', 'prove to me those are jesus' words' blah blah blah and not to mention your comparison of his life to the tooth fairy and fiction.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Now those words I can call fact.




Yes you have in fact said on numerous occasions that you dont believe in the existence of the 'character' Jesus Christ, The character painted on Jesus Christ was him being the 'son of God'. Unless you believe in fictional or imaginary characters then you dont believe in the existence of Jesus' character



Maybe i did somehow misread your earlier posts, however, you did leave the possibilty for one to come to the same conclusion i did with your repeated denial of pretty much everything the man did or said, like your 'prove to me jesus said this', 'prove to me those are jesus' words' blah blah blah and not to mention your comparison of his life to the tooth fairy and fiction.

Not often I make such a short post in WoW but I can sum up your post swiftly: utter bullshit.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Not often I make such a short post in WoW but I can sum up your post swiftly: utter bullshit.

I'll let you have the last word if you qaurantee it will be your last :thumb: