Do you believe in life after death?

[Depravo]

Yes it is. Virtually every scholar is in agreement.

Virtually
adverb
Definition: nearly, almost

Can't be 100% then, can it?

 

[Haloman800]

Virtually
adverb
Definition: nearly, almost

Can't be 100% then, can it?

Sure, poor choice of words on my part. But there's a big difference between something being "hotly debated" and "virtually every scholar is in agreement" i.e. nearly 100%. The latter being true in this case.
If someone claims they know more than virtually every scholar, how can I take them seriously?

 

[Dust2dust]

http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
I spent several hours reading on that website, and the guy has some pretty strong arguments... much stronger than the opposite school of thoughts. So, personnally, I don't think there is an afterlife, but I can live with that.

 

[Selim873]

Growing up in a Christian family, I feel like while my soul will go to heaven (or Hell haha) but I could see through the eyes of a new life. Pretty much reincarnation, even though that's typically not followed in that religion. I'm not very religious either, I just believe what I feel comfortable in believing.

 

[JazzCat.CL]

I think its gonna raaain...ohhh...when i dieee!!

 

[Lacius]

Sure, poor choice of words on my part. But there's a big difference between something being "hotly debated" and "virtually every scholar is in agreement" i.e. nearly 100%. The latter being true in this case.
If someone claims they know more than virtually every scholar, how can I take them seriously?

To claim that the debate doesn't exist is to blatantly ignore the facts of the matter. In case I wasn't clear, I am not claiming that a historical Jesus didn't exist. Many scholars agree that the Biblical Jesus was likely based off one or more people who did exist in history. However, it would be a mistake to say that he definitely existed, as it is indeed contested and debated, and it would also be a mistake to think the existence of a historical Jesus is any reason to think any of the supernatural claims in the Bible are true.

 

[VashTS]

As a Christian, yes, I do believe in life after death. If anyone wants to talk feel free to PM me.

 

[BORTZ]

snip

completely honest.

 

[Haloman800]

it would be a mistake to say that he definitely existed

Jesus of Nazareth definitely existed, virtually every scholar agrees with me on this. Your argument is akin to saying "not every scientists agrees there's climate change, to say climate change exists is blatantly ignoring the facts".

Once again, if you can't get this simple historical fact right, how can we take you seriously about any of your other claims?

 

[Lacius]

Jesus of Nazareth definitely existed, virtually every scholar agrees with me on this. Your argument is akin to saying "not every scientists agrees there's climate change, to say climate change exists is blatantly ignoring the facts".

The fact that most scholars agree that the Jesus of the Bible is based off one or more real people is not the same thing as saying, "Jesus of Nazareth definitely existed." In addition, I've explained how the existence of a historical Jesus is not the same thing as the existence of Jesus as described in the Bible.

Also, your analogy about climate change is a false one because I never said, "Not every scholar agrees Jesus exists, so to say Jesus exists is blatantly ignoring the facts." I said that if you don't acknowledge the debate, you are ignoring facts.

I've also said numerous times that I don't disagree with the likelihood of the Jesus of the Bible being based off one or more real people, and I've explained how the existence of a historical Jesus is irrelevant to the conversation about an afterlife; the topic of historical Jesus is a red herring when discussing whether or not Christianity is true or if an afterlife exists. However, due to the lack of contemporary evidence, I do not think Jesus has fully met his historical burden of proof, and there are plenty of historians who agree. I think the mistake you're making is you're conflating "there is a lack of evidence" with "Jesus definitely didn't exist." In addition, I think you are conflating "many scholars agree that Jesus existed" with "Jesus definitely existed."

Once again, if you can't get this simple historical fact right, how can we take you seriously about any of your other claims?

First, I think I've described the facts surrounding the topic of historical Jesus to the best of my ability. If you want to talk about contemporary evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, rather than make continuous appeals to authority without providing evidence, I would be happy to respond as long as it's one point at a time.

Second, whether or not I've been blatantly wrong about anything in the past makes no difference regarding the accuracy of any future points I make. The accuracy of what I say can only be judged on the quality of the evidence, not whether or not I grasped a previous "simple historical fact" in your arbitrary point of view.

 

[Haloman800]

if you don't acknowledge the debate, you are ignoring facts.

There is no debate, the scholars are in agreement. If you can't accept this simple fact, further discussion on the subject is impossible. I suggest you do further research

 

[Lacius]

There is no debate, the scholars are in agreement. If you can't accept this simple fact, further discussion on the subject is impossible. I suggest you do further research

I pointed you to one of many resources that demonstrates the debate's existence among scholars. I suggest you do further research.

 

[grossaffe]

If we're gonna be talking about the historical accuracy of "Jesus", can we at least call him by his most probable historically accurate name, "Jeshua"?

 

[lampdemon]

Jesus was about as real as witches, like most of the bible, he was probably based on some real life person with a sprinkle of magic for the book.

 

[Haloman800]

I pointed you to one of many resources that demonstrates the debate's existence among scholars. I suggest you do further research.

Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historianssee the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][33][34][35]

If we're gonna be talking about the historical accuracy of "Jesus", can we at least call him by his most probable historically accurate name, "Jeshua"?

I think you mean Yeshua, full name Yeshua ben Yosef. Either way, Jesus is based on the Greek transliteration of his name, and English is partly based on Greek, therefore Jesus is accurate.

Jesus was about as real as witches, like most of the bible, he was probably based on some real life person with a sprinkle of magic for the book.

That's simply incorrect, if you want actual, historical information from scholars (including atheists) "The Case for Christ" by Lionsgate is a great documentary about the historical Jesus.

 

[Retr0Capez]

Well, I kinda believe of two possibilities (Both sound autistic). ONE: We live what we wished to be, even if I say I want to live in the 90s as a Japanese kid, I would just live as that in the other life, but in another timeline. TWO: We go to the astral realm.

 

[grossaffe]

I think you mean Yeshua, full name Yeshua ben Yosef. Either way, Jesus is based on the Greek transliteration of his name, and English is partly based on Greek, therefore Jesus is accurate.

No, I'm perfectly fine meaning "Jeshua", as they are pronounced the same and it is translated to a character set that it did not originate from, thus the exact spelling is not of much issue. And just because English has a small amount of Greek heritage, does not mean that any Greek transliterations are accurate when then transliterated to English. English is primarily a Germanic language, anyways (there was a time when 'J' was pronounced the like a 'Y' in English, just like it is in German). If you use a language as a go-between that lacks certain sounds, then they become lost in translation thus the loss of accuracy. Greek, for example, has no equivalent to the syllable represented by the Hebrew character "shin", which in English is pronounced "sh", which means it would be impossible to transliterate the name "Jeshua" from one language to another using Greek as a middle language.

 

[Haloman800]

No, I'm perfectly fine meaning "Jeshua", as they are pronounced the same and it is translated to a character set that it did not originate from, thus the exact spelling is not of much issue. And just because English has a small amount of Greek heritage, does not mean that any Greek transliterations are accurate when then transliterated to English. English is primarily a Germanic language, anyways (there was a time when 'J' was pronounced the like a 'Y' in English, just like it is in German). If you use a language as a go-between that lacks certain sounds, then they become lost in translation thus the loss of accuracy. Greek, for example, has no equivalent to the syllable represented by the Hebrew character "shin", which in English is pronounced "sh", which means it would be impossible to transliterate the name "Jeshua" from one language to another using Greek as a middle language.

There's no letter J in Greek or Hebrew, so I'm not sure where you're getting "Jeshua". If you're concerned with correct/original pronunciation/spelling, the only correct answer is "Yeshua".

 

[grossaffe]

There's no letter J in Greek or Hebrew, so I'm not sure where you're getting "Jeshua". If you're concerned with correct/original pronunciation/spelling, the only correct answer is "Yeshua".

Did you actually read the explanation about how I don't care much about the exact spelling because the pronunciation remains the same? 'J' can be pronounced as a 'Y', as it was in old English and in German. The name does not originate with the Roman Alphabet, so the exact spelling in the Roman Alphabet matters not as long as it can lead to the correct pronunciation. By the way, I got my spelling of the name from a History professor.

 

[Haloman800]

By the way, I got my spelling of the name from a History professor.

Anecdotal evidence.
Feel free to spell it however you want. You brought up correct pronunciation, I assumed you'd wish to have correct grammar as well.
Here's sources on the correct spelling (Yeshua)
http://30ce.com/
http://www.thenazareneway.com/yeshua_jesus_real_name.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)
http://www.gotquestions.org/Yeshua-Jesus.html