Posted: Mar 14, 2016 8:46 pm
by proudfootz
kyrani99 wrote:
dejuror wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:I believe that Jesus was a historical figure, a prophet, for two reasons:-
1. some of the statements he made require great insight, eg "the kingdom of heaven is within you",
2. Mohammed talked about Jesus and did not believe that he was crucified.

Your belief is irrelevant since you have zero historical evidence for your Jesus.

We already know that billions of people believe Jesus existed without evidence.

kyrani99 wrote:
I think a lot of what Jesus said was distorted and rewritten by many but most particularly by Paul.

The so-called Pauline writings are a compilation of fiction.

Writers under the name of Paul claimed they received information from Jesus after he was resurrected.

Such claims are a pack of lies.

In effect, the Pauline writings have no credible historical evidence for Jesus.

Those who argue for an historical Jesus are in denial--they never ever had any evidence.

Paul is not only fiction and a pack of lies, but ones that do harm to many people.

As far as Jesus the prophet is concerned, I am giving you evidence.

Some of the words /teachings of Jesus haven't been tampered with. I would say most probably because those that sought to corrupt and exploit his teachings have no idea what they mean. A person who has had enlightenment experience, even if not very deep, would recognize them. They would realize that they could only have been uttered by someone with deep enlightenment, i.e., a prophet. So those words and teachings are evidence that Jesus or some prophet, what ever his name was,( eg the Gnostics have talked about a "Teacher of Righteousness"), existed.

An interesting take. But it isn't good enough for the historicity of a very specific person to merely claim 'some one existed to say these things' - obviously, the author of a story existed.

It is like for instance, say a great mathematician was supposed to have lived but there is no historical evidence. Some of the things the mathematician had said were written down. No one at the time understood what they meant but later on reviewing them by others, who are mathematicians recognize the incredible theories and proofs. Those theories and proofs indicate that a mathematician must have existed.

Perhaps a good analogy, except when it comes to 'spiritual truths' it is impossible to show they are true - unlike something in maths which are independently verifiable.

The other evidence is the recognition of Jesus, partly from his work/ teachings, but more so because there is a spiritual connection between those that are enlightened, and very strongly by those that are deeply enlightened, i.e., by another prophet. So Mohammad's recognition/ confirmation is evidence. Likewise, there are things that Mohammad said that again could only have been said by a prophet. These are statements that point directly to the Oneness. They are evidence.

Using the 'testimony' of a dubious character like Mohammad to verify the existence of a dubious character like Jesus is rather an incautious approach.

Even if we could be pretty sure Mohammad existed, what he did or did not believe wouldn't help us much as he'd be in no better a position to know anything than we are.