Life after death

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
But this is not a theological debate, this is a challenge to those who believe Jesus existed as man or god to put up, or shut up...

Sorry, Vanni Fucci, you cannot lump all of them together. Man and God are two different things. Those who claim that Jesus was God; I agree with you, they must present some evidence.

However, when I say that existence of Jesus the man sounds plausible, I don’t need any evidence. I am not saying that Jesus the man existed, but that he may have existed, his existence sounds plausible.

And why do I say that? Because we have men with the name Jesus living today. So why not back then?

Here the shoe is on the other foot. If you are categorically saying that Jesus the man did not exist, you have to provide some evidence for it.
 

ahmadabdalrhman

Electoral Member
Sep 14, 2008
379
4
18
www.watchislam.com
But this is not a theological debate, this is a challenge to those who believe Jesus existed as man or god to put up, or shut up...

Sorry, Vanni Fucci, you cannot lump all of them together. Man and God are two different things. Those who claim that Jesus was God; I agree with you, they must present some evidence.

Jesus was prophet not the god or son from god

However, when I say that existence of Jesus the man sounds plausible, I don’t need any evidence. I am not saying that Jesus the man existed, but that he may have existed, his existence sounds plausible.

prophet Jesus was existed in earth but not normal man was ( prophet )

And why do I say that? Because we have men with the name Jesus living today. So why not back then?

I with you in this

Here the shoe is on the other foot. If you are categorically saying that Jesus the man did not exist, you have to provide some evidence for it.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
What is implausible about the statement that Jesus the man may have existed?

You think because the myth exists there is a possibility the man did too but you think that despite the Horus myth the bird headed man did not.

Examine the genealogy of the myths and you see that both posses many of the same elements. Examine the genealogy of many myths and you see that there is a whole school of them. There is a definite pattern which explains the Jesus myth very well without the need for an actual man. If you look at the inconsistencies in the story, the late date of its making (40+ years), that it was all hearsay with no first hand witnesses etc and you can see that this is a story made up like all the other myths. The most important element is that for all the other myths, which are so similar to the Jesus myth, there was no need for actual gods. As you point out the bird headed man of Horus is very improbable but (and yet!) we still have the myth. In point of fact we have dozens of them which are very similar to the Jesus myth. All those myths did not require real gods for the myth to be created! Therefore I say that the Jesus myth also did not need a real figure on which to base it. If there was a real Jesus then it would have been the only actual character on which a myth was based. That is just absurd when you consider all the magical powers and abilities ascribed to the figure. On top of that if he didn't have those powers then there is nothing whatsoever to distinguish him for such honors of being the center of such a myth! He taught nothing new; everything he says can be found elsewhere. So why would anyone bother even remembering him 40+ years later to make a myth about him? The fact is they wouldn't. Couple this with the established practice of making things like gods up in the exact manner the Jesus myth was made and I can very confidently say Jesus absolutely never existed. He is a fictional character exactly like Horus. The odds Jesus was real is the same as that of Horus being real.

If you are going to say that Jesus may have existed then you must also say the bird headed Horus may have existed. If you are uncomfortable with one and not the other then you are plainly wish-thinking.
 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Is there life after death? We don’t know, and we have no way of finding out, short of somebody dying, getting resurrected and telling us what is on the other side (and in that case, nobody will believe that he died in the first place).

So this is something we will never know. However, the default position has to be that what we see is all there is. Unless somebody can produce convincing proof of after life, the only reasonable, logical position is that there is no after life.

There are probably several hundred versions of afterlife floating around. Fundamentalist Muslim concept of Heaven (where terrorists are supposedly rewarded with 72 virgins), or Christian concept of Heaven and Hell (where anybody how does not believe in Christ suffers eternal torture, eternal damnation), Hindu concept of ‘nirvana’ etc. How do we know which is the right one?

Until somebody proves to me otherwise, I take the only logical position that there is n afterlife.

This is in the Quran 22: 5-7

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِن كُنتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِّنَ الْبَعْثِ فَإِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ عَلَقَةٍ ثُمَّ مِن مُّضْغَةٍ مُّخَلَّقَةٍ وَغَيْرِ مُخَلَّقَةٍ لِّنُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ وَنُقِرُّ فِي الْأَرْحَامِ مَا نَشَاء إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ثُمَّ نُخْرِجُكُمْ طِفْلًا ثُمَّ لِتَبْلُغُوا أَشُدَّكُمْ وَمِنكُم مَّن يُتَوَفَّى وَمِنكُم مَّن يُرَدُّ إِلَى أَرْذَلِ الْعُمُرِ لِكَيْلَا يَعْلَمَ مِن بَعْدِ عِلْمٍ شَيْئًا...الخ

The explanation:
(If you [people] are in doubt about the sending forth [of souls to the 'gathering together' in the Hereafter], then [know that]:

[1] We created you from soil [or earth],
then from scanty fluid [: semen], then from clot, then from a 'morsel of flesh': completely created and incompletely created, [these are the stages of the development of the embryo in the womb]
and We keep in the wombs whatever We want to an appointed time [of birth],
then We take you out [of your mothers' wombs] as child [after another],
then that you may attain your [age of] full strength,
and some of you are called to die,
and some may be let to attain his lowliest elderly that he may not – following his knowledge – know anything.

[2] You even may see the land desolate but when We send the water down on it, it quivers [with the plant], and swells and grows every pleasant kind [of plant.]


That is because God – He is the Truth, and brings the dead to life, and is powerful over everything.


And that the Hour [of death] is coming without any doubt;
and that God will send forth [to the "Gathering-together" and Judgment] those who are in graves.)

More explanation:
(We created you from soil) because most of the nutrient substances are the plants which originated in the soil; then when man eats the fruits and plant products it will be part of his body and lead to the formation of the sperms of the semen.
Therefore, the one that is Most Able to create man from earth, then won't He be Able to send people to the next life?

Another example is the desolate land which is dry, cracked and having no plant; then when the rain comes on such land, it will move with the plant, and will increase by the nitrogen of the air and the carbon dioxide which has been molten by the rain. Then this land will produce various kinds of fruits delightful to the sight.
The one that revives such dead land, won't He be Able to send people to the next life?


 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Is there life after death? We don’t know, and we have no way of finding out, short of somebody dying, getting resurrected and telling us what is on the other side (and in that case, nobody will believe that he died in the first place).

So this is something we will never know. However, the default position has to be that what we see is all there is. Unless somebody can produce convincing proof of after life, the only reasonable, logical position is that there is no after life.

There are probably several hundred versions of afterlife floating around. Fundamentalist Muslim concept of Heaven (where terrorists are supposedly rewarded with 72 virgins), or Christian concept of Heaven and Hell (where anybody how does not believe in Christ suffers eternal torture, eternal damnation), Hindu concept of ‘nirvana’ etc. How do we know which is the right one?

Until somebody proves to me otherwise, I take the only logical position that there is n afterlife.


God – be glorified – said in the Quran 16: 38-39

وَأَقْسَمُواْ بِاللّهِ جَهْدَ أَيْمَانِهِمْ لاَ يَبْعَثُ اللّهُ مَن يَمُوتُ بَلَى وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا وَلكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ . لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي يَخْتَلِفُونَ فِيهِ وَلِيَعْلَمَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُواْ كَاذِبِينَ ...إلخ

The explanation:
(They have sworn by God the most earnest oaths: "God will never send [to the Hereafter] him who dies."

>> No, but it is a promise [binding] upon Him, but most men know not.

>> That He may manifest to them [the truth of] that on which they do dispute,

>> and that those who unbelieve may realize that they were liars [in their claims that there is no afterlife].

The only words We say to a thing, when We desire it, is that We say to it: "Be", and it is [as We desired.] )

 
Last edited:

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Examine the genealogy of the myths and you see that both posses many of the same elements.

Scott Free, both possess the same elements, agreed, I am familiar with the legend of Horus. Undoubtedly there are similarities.

Then what makes Jesus the mortal man plausible but Horus the bird headed man implausible? Simple. Jesus the man was just an ordinary man, a mortal man, there is nothing implausible that a man named Jesus may have lived 2000 tears ago.

Same as there is nothing implausible that a man named Mohammed may have lived several hundred years ago (Islam), a man named Siddhartha or Zarathustra lived several thousand years ago (Buddhism or Zoroastrianism) or a man named Guru Govind Singh (or Guru Nanak) lived a few centuries ago (Sikhism).

The Prophets or Messiahs of most religions are considered to be ordinary, mortal men and there is nothing implausible to assume that they really lived, minus the supernatural, Godly powers. That indeed is what I assume.

You claim that thinking that Jesus the man may have lived makes me Christian. Then I assume since I believe that Siddhartha, Zarathustra, Mohammed, or Govind Singh also lived, that makes me a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, a Muslim and a Sikh, in addition to being a Christian.

But when it comes to the legend of Horus, we are talking of a bird headed man. We know such creatures do not exist, so the assumption that Horus may have actually lived is nonsense.

Therefore I say that the Jesus myth also did not need a real figure on which to base it.

I agree. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was not a real figure on which the legend of Chrsitianity was based. There could well have been.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I agree. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was not a real figure on which the legend of Chrsitianity was based. There could well have been.

I don't think there could well have been; that is far too generous. There is an infinitesimal chance of it. It is a remote possibility. Just like there is a remote possibility there was a bird headed man.

I don't see why you are caught up on the bird head? There is plenty more fantastic about the Jesus myth. Perhaps Horus wore a convincing mask. You just don't know.

So if you will say there may well have been a man named Jesus then it is idiotic not to also say there may well have been a man named Horus.

The fact you can say one "may well" have existed and the other could not have shows an incredible ignorance of the subject. Both are negatives born out of the exact same social machine. One simply is not more probable than another.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Then what makes Jesus the mortal man plausible but Horus the bird headed man implausible? Simple. Jesus the man was just an ordinary man, a mortal man, there is nothing implausible that a man named Jesus may have lived 2000 tears ago.

Same as there is nothing implausible that a man named Mohammed may have lived several hundred years ago (Islam), a man named Siddhartha or Zarathustra lived several thousand years ago (Buddhism or Zoroastrianism) or a man named Guru Govind Singh (or Guru Nanak) lived a few centuries ago (Sikhism).

Without contemporaneous accounts that corroborate their existence, they must be stricken from history, and relegated to folklore...

The only example you gave that satisfies that criterion is Gobind Singh...

I'll not be converting to Sikhism based on that, but there is a good probability that Guru Gobind Singh was an actual historic figure...the others, not so much...

Even Mohammed lacks contemporaneous corroboration...a fact that most Muslims don't even know about...
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I don't think there could well have been; that is far too generous. There is an infinitesimal chance of it. It is a remote possibility. Just like there is a remote possibility there was a bird headed man.

I don't see why you are caught up on the bird head? There is plenty more fantastic about the Jesus myth. Perhaps Horus wore a convincing mask. You just don't know.

So if you will say there may well have been a man named Jesus then it is idiotic not to also say there may well have been a man named Horus.

The fact you can say one "may well" have existed and the other could not have shows an incredible ignorance of the subject. Both are negatives born out of the exact same social machine. One simply is not more probable than another.

Scott Free, if you are saying that there may have lived a man named Horus, you may have something there. But the legend does not say that Horus was a man, evidently he was a mythological creature, with the head of the bird.

As to his wearing a bird mask, I assume it would have said so in the story if that had been the case.

The story of Horus postulated a bird headed man; the story of Jesus postulates an ordinary man. That is the difference between the two legends.

Now, if you have come across a variant of the Horus legend which says that Horus was just a man, with maybe wearing a bird mask, I would like to see it. But going by Horus legend alone (as we know it), the historicity of Horus is impossible

Based upon the legend of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, while not well established, is nevertheless plausible, possible.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Without contemporaneous accounts that corroborate their existence, they must be stricken from history, and relegated to folklore...

I'll not be converting to Sikhism based on that, but there is a good probability that Guru Gobind Singh was an actual historic figure...the others, not so much...

Vanni Fucci, that is a matter of personal opinion, isn’t it? You may think there is not any evidence for historicity of these figures, others may disagree with you.

To me, things are rarely so cut and dried, so black and white. I take the attitude that all these Messiahs or Prophets could have been real men, could have been historical figures. Were they really historical figures? We probably will never know.

So I assume the historicity of all these figures, while ignoring the miracles they performed or any claims they have to be the Messiah or the Prophet.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Even Mohammed lacks contemporaneous corroboration...a fact that most Muslims don't even know about...
Well well... I didn't know that either, that's the first time I've seen that claim. I've always thought Mohammed's reality as a historical figure was pretty well corroborated. Guess I'll have to do a little more research on that. Got any helpful links?
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Well well... I didn't know that either, that's the first time I've seen that claim. I've always thought Mohammed's reality as a historical figure was pretty well corroborated. Guess I'll have to do a little more research on that. Got any helpful links?

YouTube - Muhammad-Is he Historical?

An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism

Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (Ibn Warraq) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who was the Prophet Muhammad? - article by Daniel Pipes

What do we actually know about Mohammed? | open Democracy News Analysis

Here Patricia Crone bases her reason for believing Mohammed existed upon one document in Syria that was written 2 years after his death (or rather the year he was said to have died)...and an Armenian document written 29 years after his death.

I've read several articles mentioning that several non-muslim references mention Mohammed, but none actual site these references.

At this time, the position on non-existence a touchy one, but is becoming more popular in academic circles, especially in Europe...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott Free

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Another interesting thing is that Islamic tradition contends that the Quran was originally written in Arabic and has never been altered.

There is growing evidence that the Quran was actually written in Aramaic, as Arabic was not used as a written language until late in the 7th century.

Some scholars even go so far as to surmise that Islam was originally a Christian sect....

I don't have a lot of details on that yet...still looking into the matter...

As far as the existence of Mohammed goes though, all of his conquests from 622-630 CE there should have been some non-muslim reference to the prophet of Allah leading his Islamic armies across the ancient near east...but the world seems silent on the matter...
 
Last edited:

ahmadabdalrhman

Electoral Member
Sep 14, 2008
379
4
18
www.watchislam.com
The Hadiths were written over 150 years after tradition marks the death of your prophet.

All of them from oral tradition, so they have absolutely NO claim to authenticity.

no The Hadiths were written before that

Umar ibn AbdulAziz

Generally, Umar II is credited with having ordered the first collection of hadith material in an official manner, fearing that some of it might be lost. Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Hazm and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, are among those who compiled hadiths at `Umar II’s behest. [2].
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Hadith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hadiths were originally oral traditions of Muhammad's actions and customs. From the first Fitna of the 7th century people questioned the sources of hadiths. [7] This resulted in a list of transmitters, for example "A told me that B told him that Muhammad said."
Hadith were eventually written down, evaluated and gathered into large collections mostly during the reign of Umar II (bin Abdul Aziz, grandson of Umar bin Khattab(RAA)2nd Caliph) during 8th century, and also in the 9th century. These works are referred to in matters of Islamic law and History to this day.
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz
(c. 682 - February, 720 [1] (Arabic: عمر بن عبد العزيز‎) was an Umayyad caliph who ruled from 717 to 720
Collection of oral tradition began sometime after he took the caliphate, but does not appear in written form until the 9th century CE.
 
Last edited:

ahmadabdalrhman

Electoral Member
Sep 14, 2008
379
4
18
www.watchislam.com
Hadith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collection of oral tradition began sometime after he took the caliphate, but does not appear in written form until the 9th century CE.

no that no truth

Collection of oral tradition began when prophet muhamad alive

he was appear in written form when prophet muhamed died

and he start written formally when Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz alive

and that time become the science

the science he was name In arabic

علم الرجال

mean

men science

he is about

learn pedigrees the narrators and adjectives them them liers or not them much amnesia ...etc



then class al hadiths The Hadiths ( Sahih. or . not sahih.Etc )
 
Last edited: