Does God exist?

[talalrulez]

Oh my freaking God. @ILoveJesus Did you just ignore me again? You know what? i seriously don't care. if you had bothered watching the video, you would've have seen Deedat disprove the resurrection of Jesus with your own freaking bible! If you are so close-minded that you can't listen properly to others arguments, why are you on here? 

btw, ALL NEW TESTAMENT scholars would be christian because only christian would believe in the freaking New Testament. Muslims believe in the Quran and reject NT. Jews believe only in Old Testament and reject New Testament. Hindus believe in the Vedas and reject the New Testament. Buddhists believe in the Tripitaka, the Mahayana Sutras and the Tibetan Book of the Dead and reject the New Testament. EVERY SINGLE OTHER RELIGION BESIDES CHRISTIANITY rejects the New Testament, and Atheists reject all religions and thus all sacred texts. Therefore, it's obvious that only Christians believe in New Testament and if you cant see that, there is definitely something wrong with you.

Edited February 7, 2017 by talalrulez

[ILoveJesus]

5 hours ago, talalrulez said:

 

Oh my freaking God. @ILoveJesus Did you just ignore me again? You know what? i seriously don't care. if you had bothered watching the video, you would've have seen Deedat disprove the resurrection of Jesus with your own freaking bible! If you are so close-minded that you can't listen properly to others arguments, why are you on here? 

 

Why don't you sum up the arguments instead of sending hour-long videos? 

 

5 hours ago, talalrulez said:

 

btw, ALL NEW TESTAMENT scholars would be christian because only christian would believe in the freaking New Testament. Muslims believe in the Quran and reject NT. Jews believe only in Old Testament and reject New Testament. Hindus believe in the Vedas and reject the New Testament. Buddhists believe in the Tripitaka, the Mahayana Sutras and the Tibetan Book of the Dead and reject the New Testament. EVERY SINGLE OTHER RELIGION BESIDES CHRISTIANITY rejects the New Testament, and Atheists reject all religions and thus all sacred texts. Therefore, it's obvious that only Christians believe in New Testament and if you cant see that, there is definitely something wrong with you.

 

On 2017-02-05 at 0:16 AM, azara said:

No data is required, it's quite obvious.  The only people who would dedicate so much time to studying the New Testament are those who believe it's worthwhile, ie. Christians.  No other religious group would have any interest in it, it's not even like the Old Testament where the text is relevant to Judaism and to an extent Islam as well.  The NT is exclusively Christian.  Would you become a scholar of, say, the Koran? Of course not, the scholars of Islamic texts are exclusively Muslim.

It is far from obvious that only Christians study the New Testament. Just because some historical documents aren't essential to your faith, doesn't mean you can't study it. In fact, if you already take the New Testament for granted, there is also less incentive to study it and verify its historicity. Here are a few prominent non-Christian NT scholars in case you don't believe me: EP Sanders, James Charlesworth, Michael Grant, Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes.

And it still stands that the majority of scholars who have studied this subject a LOT more than we have agree that the tomb was empty, and that people had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after the crucifixion. 

Bonus: some quotes by prominent non-Christian NT scholars: 

"That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact." - E.P. Sanders

"It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection." - Bart Ehrman

"The historical ground of Easter is very simple: the followers of Jesus, both then and now, continued to experience Jesus as a living reality after his death. In the early Christian community, these experiences included visions or apparitions of Jesus." - Marcus Borg

Really does seem like an actual resurrection is highly probable.

Edited February 7, 2017 by ILoveJesus

[talalrulez]

7 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

Why don't you sum up the arguments instead of sending hour-long videos? 

lol wow so when you send a list of articles that take more than an hour to actually read and analyze, so as to not give superficial answers, i shouldn't do so? okthenbro, dw. either way, i'll sum up what he said. (thanks for turning this into a debate on christianity?)

When jesus died on the cross, he supposedly fulfilled couple hunded prophesies right? You should know this considering your great Love for Jesus. However, the only prophesy which was uttered by Jesus, is not fulfilled. So many prophesies made, yet the one made by the man himself is not fulfilled. 

So, when the Jews came and sarcastically asked Jesus for a miracle, Jesus responded by insulting them and then stating "Just as Jonas was for three days and three nights, so too shall i be for three days and three nights." You should know Jonas, and if you compare their stories, (not looking at whether Jesus was swallowed by a whale, but looking at the time that Jesus was "dead" and comparing them being dead or alive) you see that they don't match at all. So according to your own bible, the only prophesy made by Jesus is not fulfilled, and so Jews are justified in not believing in Jesus. This is among 1 of the many contradictions associated with the new testament, and specifically with the resurrection. 

Look, i want to be done with this topic, as i don't like insulting others views on religion or their religion, which is why i put the Deedat video so we could get this specific topic over and done with, and move onto something more interesting, like the topic of morals we discussed previously. Please watch the video so we can be finished. Plus watch it, considering i KNOW i didn't really convey the message across to you)

 

(LOL, done this during a study period)

Edited February 7, 2017 by talalrulez

[ILoveJesus]

7 hours ago, talalrulez said:

Please watch the video so we can be finished. Plus watch it, considering i KNOW i didn't really convey the message across to you)

Which video was it?

[talalrulez]

 He actually starts everything from 24:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDN8cJs41I

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by talalrulez

[talalrulez]

On 2/6/2017 at 10:41 AM, azara said:

In the meantime, here's a question for everybody, religious or not: what are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins? Personally my feelings are mixed - I agree with his viewpoint (mostly), he has brilliant rhetoric and presentation, but I'm not sure his belligerence helps win over those on the fence.  I'm interested to know what you guys think!

Lol, i know its actually quite late replying to you, but to be honest, i've only head so little about him. i've heard that he's a great thinker and talker, and that he's like the type of person that goes out to educate people about faith (or in his case, lack thereof). All though it is minimal, i will ensure that i at the very least watch a talk of his in the weekend. Or you can suggest me something to watch. Either way, i don't mind. 

[ILoveJesus]

9 hours ago, talalrulez said:

 He actually starts everything from 24:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDN8cJs41I

 

Okay it's a long video so I'll see when I can get to it. Might take a couple days.

[ILoveJesus]

@talalrulez okay so the objection is that Jesus said he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, but he was crucified on Friday and supposedly resurrected on the Sunday morning. That would only be two nights, so how come he said three nights?

First, this question assumes that the Bible is reliable, so in my answer I can also assume that the Bible is reliable. And if that's the case, since the Bible also says that Jesus was resurrected, this isn't a problem for the resurrection. So the problem is that if we can rely on the Bible, why did Jesus say "three days and three nights", even though only two nights passed between his crucifixion and resurrection?
So the resurrection isn't what's in question here. The thing in question is why Jesus said what he said. 
There are two very good explanations for this. 

1. The term "Three days and three nights" was a Jewish expression that means "any period that touches three days, including the nights". I'll prove it right now: in 1 Samuel 30:11-13, there was a boy who hadn't eaten for "three days and three nights". And the boy said it started three days ago. Back then, three days ago included today. So if it was Friday, three days ago would mean Wednesday. And there are only two nights between Wednesday and Friday. So in reality it was only two nights, but "three days and three nights" is still used to express that. And the same goes for Jesus.

2. A different and interesting explanation is that "the heart of the earth" does not refer to death or the tomb. When Jesus says he will be in the heart of the earth, he could be reffering to his time of suffering for our sins. And this in fact starts on Thursday in the Garden of Gethsemane. So that would literally be three days and three nights.

Whatever the explanation is, this issue is not very relevant because his disciples didn't seem to have any difficulties with this phrase. Nobody said "Wait a minute, you rose too early". Fact is that they did believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by ILoveJesus

[talalrulez]

11 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

@talalrulez okay so the objection is that Jesus said he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, but he was crucified on Friday and supposedly resurrected on the Sunday morning. That would only be two nights, so how come he said three nights?

First, this question assumes that the Bible is reliable, so in my answer I can also assume that the Bible is reliable. And if that's the case, since the Bible also says that Jesus was resurrected, this isn't a problem for the resurrection. So the problem is that if we can rely on the Bible, why did Jesus say "three days and three nights", even though only two nights passed between his crucifixion and resurrection?
So the resurrection isn't what's in question here. The thing in question is why Jesus said what he said. 
There are two very good explanations for this. 

1. The term "Three days and three nights" was a Jewish expression that means "any period that touches three days, including the nights". I'll prove it right now: in 1 Samuel 30:11-13, there was a boy who hadn't eaten for "three days and three nights". And the boy said it started three days ago. Back then, three days ago included today. So if it was Friday, three days ago would mean Wednesday. And there are only two nights between Wednesday and Friday. So in reality it was only two nights, but "three days and three nights" is still used to express that. And the same goes for Jesus.

2. A different and interesting explanation is that "the heart of the earth" does not refer to death or the tomb. When Jesus says he will be in the heart of the earth, he could be reffering to his time of suffering for our sins. And this in fact starts on Thursday in the Garden of Gethsemane. So that would literally be three days and three nights.

Whatever the explanation is, this issue is not very relevant because his disciples didn't seem to have any difficulties with this phrase. Nobody said "Wait a minute, you rose too early". Fact is that they did believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

the thing is it didn't touch 3 days. ther was only 2 nights and 1 day. since its not touching, this jewish expression can't be used. 

look, im not gonna address your other points because deedat already addressed them. did you watch all or did you skim through the video

[ILoveJesus]

3 hours ago, talalrulez said:

the thing is it didn't touch 3 days. ther was only 2 nights and 1 day. since its not touching, this jewish expression can't be used. 

look, im not gonna address your other points because deedat already addressed them. did you watch all or did you skim through the video

Friday, Saturday, Sunday. That't three days. It definitely touched three days. And no I didn't watch them because I didn't think I needed to because I realized that I understand the argument you made. So how does he address the points?

[talalrulez]

he proves it doesn't touch 3 days with your own FREAKING bible. bro, when someone considers evidence, you don't cherry pick. you watch or select the whole thing rather than look only at specific parts. which is why i said previously to watch that video on your weekend when you have time to see the whole thing. just because you're PRETTY sure of something (key word if you didn't notice is pretty)doesn't mean it is fact.

[azara]

Nobody's really obligated to dedicate large amounts of their time to a thread on the internet.  Perhaps instead of either of you posting videos, you just summarise what is in them, or move on to a different topic which doesn't require so much time investment? Not trying to moderate, but otherwise both of you will just claim the other wasn't paying attention

[talalrulez]

lol okay sorry @azara you're a guy i have to listen to and as payback for introducing me to Richard Dawkins, i'll listen. 

ok @ILoveJesus. This is how it starts. A miracle is defined as something that you find amazing. For example, if i were to fortell the future regarding the fate of the world, or the next major catastrophe, that would be a miracle, right. SOOOOO, when Jesus spoke to the Jews, he stated that his only miracle to them would be "of Jonas, and just as he stayed in the whale for three days and three nights, so too shall i be in the earth for three days and three nights," or something like that (im quoting from memory here so cut me some slack). Jonas's miracle was that despite being thrown into a stormy sea, being swallowed by a whale, he was still able to live, and even prayed to god whilst in the belly of the beast. After all this, God kept his servant alive, and bla bla bla there's a happy ending for Jonas.so when Jesus said he shall be in the earth for three days and three nights, there are 2 ways a person can take this: they can either look at whether Jesus stayed alive the whole time, or they can look at the time(just to let you know, a crucifixion is meant to be a slow death, taking usually several days, but lets just assume the argument that Jesus died right away, just discarding all known information about this form of torture).

So looking at the first option, Jonas stayed alive the whole time, whilst Jesus died.pretty obviously, this one doesn't hold up. So the second choice, which is what you pointed out, is time. So Jesus as a jew believed that the new day on the calendar starts at sunrise, as do we muslims. so he died on friday evening. that's one night for him. Then there's Saturday day. thats one day and one night for him. Then there's Saturday night and now that's 2 nights and 1 day for him. Now on Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene came looking for him,and found that he had already left, and a figure came to her, and asked her what she was doing in the mausoleum, and she says that she looking for Jesus to care for him, ie: she had known he was alive beforehand. so this is 2 nights and 1 day. Despite Jesus assigning himself 6 time periods (3 days and 3 nights) he still fails to meet it, and even in your theory of 3 days and 2 nights (or we can swap it around for sake of argument) he still fails to meet the criteria. Furthermore, Mary's entering of the tomb signifies the fact that she knew that he was alive, perhaps the only one among the believers of Jesus. This is known as the other disciples say themselves that they could only atone for Jesus's death through gossip they heard, meaning that they were not eye witnesses. they had heard people saying this, so they believed it.So when Jesus came to them, they thought they were seeing a ghost of some kind, and he reassured them that he was not in fact a ghost, and to prove so, he let them touch him and he ate in front of them, still not out of the time limit that he provided for himself.

Anyway, we know from Mary's encounter of Jesus that in fact, Jesus was disguised as a gardner, so as to not be found by the Romans and the Jews and be persecuted yet again, meaning that he feared death. Yet, the bible states that every being has only one life, and they shall not be granted any more, until Judgement. That would mean, had Jesus died, he shouldn't have beenafraid of being seen by them, as they would not be able to touch him, coz according to the bible, hes kind of a zombie, yet even that is too simple, If you've read "Skulduggery Pleasent" know that i compare Jesus in this case to the White Cleaver, in that they are both in full control of themselves and their mind, and do not hunger for brains or any other crap like that; they are just alive, despite supposed to have being dead. I think you get the gist of what i'm saying.

If you've actually read the bible thoroughly as i have done, and not just picked stuff from internet or listen to your one time weekly priest for information on Christianity, i expect to not have to list all the verses from which they originate, as even this is at least, considering it has to do with one of the biggest parts of Christianity, a known to all Christians(i am fully assuming. i was not raised a christian and so don't really know what you learn about in bible studies.). so therefore, i'm pretty sure i've shown all needed information in dismissing the reality of any resurrection and am therefore done with the debate at hand, not because im running away, but ive spent a hell of a lot of time on this, rather than my studies, which has been bothering me lately(btw, when say im a muslim, i meant i explored through many religions, from Judaism to Jainism, and made an educated choice of what i thought was best. This was just a bit of me trying to tell you a little bit about myself).

anyway, to all the other people, I'd like to bring up a new topic, which i learnt about whilst listening to a CrashCourse lesson. What do you guys think about Divine Command Theory?     

[talalrulez]

Have you guys decided not to post anymore? 

come on. At least someone make a comment delivering how they feel about divine command theory...

[azara]

1 hour ago, talalrulez said:

Have you guys decided not to post anymore? 

come on. At least someone make a comment delivering how they feel about divine command theory...

I will definitely look into it! It's just I moved into uni on the weekend and have been flat out with O week since.  It'll happen

[talalrulez]

OMG lol good luck with whatever you're doing. 

[ILoveJesus]

On 2017-02-10 at 11:48 AM, talalrulez said:

So looking at the first option, Jonas stayed alive the whole time, whilst Jesus died.pretty obviously, this one doesn't hold up. So the second choice, which is what you pointed out, is time. So Jesus as a jew believed that the new day on the calendar starts at sunrise, as do we muslims. so he died on friday evening. that's one night for him. Then there's Saturday day. thats one day and one night for him. Then there's Saturday night and now that's 2 nights and 1 day for him. Now on Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene came looking for him,and found that he had already left, and a figure came to her, and asked her what she was doing in the mausoleum, and she says that she looking for Jesus to care for him, ie: she had known he was alive beforehand. so this is 2 nights and 1 day. Despite Jesus assigning himself 6 time periods (3 days and 3 nights) he still fails to meet it, and even in your theory of 3 days and 2 nights (or we can swap it around for sake of argument) he still fails to meet the criteria.

Like I made clear before, "3 days and 3 nights" was an old Jewish expression which meant any time period that touches three days. This time period touched Friday Saturday and Sunday, which is three days, regardless of what time it was. Also, you didn't even respond to my second explanation which is also plausible.

On 2017-02-10 at 11:48 AM, talalrulez said:

Furthermore, Mary's entering of the tomb signifies the fact that she knew that he was alive, perhaps the only one among the believers of Jesus. This is known as the other disciples say themselves that they could only atone for Jesus's death through gossip they heard, meaning that they were not eye witnesses. they had heard people saying this, so they believed it.So when Jesus came to them, they thought they were seeing a ghost of some kind, and he reassured them that he was not in fact a ghost, and to prove so, he let them touch him and he ate in front of them, still not out of the time limit that he provided for himself.

I honestly don't even know where you're going with this. First, Mary Magdalene and the other women didn't know that he was resurrected, and even if the did, who cares? It just shows that they trusted Jesus
. And then you talk about how the disciples only knew about Jesus' death because of gossip? Do you have any evidence for this? Of course Jesus' disciples knew that he would get crucified. And still, who cares?

On 2017-02-10 at 11:48 AM, talalrulez said:

Anyway, we know from Mary's encounter of Jesus that in fact, Jesus was disguised as a gardner, so as to not be found by the Romans and the Jews and be persecuted yet again, meaning that he feared death. Yet, the bible states that every being has only one life, and they shall not be granted any more, until Judgement. That would mean, had Jesus died, he shouldn't have beenafraid of being seen by them, as they would not be able to touch him, coz according to the bible, hes kind of a zombie

So basically you're saying that Jesus cannot have been physically resurrected because the bible states that every being has only one life and shall not be granted any more until judgement. The most similar verse I can find is Hebrews 9:27 which says "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment", New International Version (if you meant another verse please let me know).
Saying that Jesus cannot be resurrected because of this verse is honestly silly. Do you really think that "people" refers to Jesus as well? Jesus wasn't just a mere person to Paul (the author) you know. Other translations say "man", but it's the same situation again.

 

These objections are honestly silly. You're taking bible verses way too literally even though you know Jesus spoke in metaphors very frequently.

[talalrulez]

2 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

Like I made clear before, "3 days and 3 nights" was an old Jewish expression which meant any time period that touches three days. This time period touched Friday Saturday and Sunday, which is three days, regardless of what time it was. Also, you didn't even respond to my second explanation which is also plausible.

lol this part just made me cringe. friday is day 0, siphr inarabic, cero in spanish, nul in dutch. if it started on friday, that means friday is day 0. saturday would be day 1, and sunday would be day 2. wth i even counted them for you previously. cringe was real in this reply. it pretty much set the tone for the rest of your argument: lacking and in a desperate attempt, you called my argument weak. all i derived from your reply is that you seriously haven't read the bible. Lastly on the topic of Jesus, if someone makes a direct statement, there really shouldn't be any metaphors. look at the context. when those jews asked him he called them the sons of an adulterous generation (he basically called their mums *****s) and heap a whole load of insults on them before he specifically said he was gonna "in the belly of the earth for threedays and three nights just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights." the only literary technique one canfind in there is the comparison of events. there are no metaphors. Just because said person usually speaks in metaphors, doesn't mean said person will speak in metaphors all the time.

Sure Jesus wasn't 'just a man' to paul BUT when critics of the bible ask why Jesus ate and prayed and stated that the power resided with the father and nt with him, bible sholars state that Jesus was still part man and it was the man part of him that needed to complete this. you can't abandon an argument in one instance to defend from another attack. your admitting that jesus was not man at all (please don't deny it, you just stated that Jesus wasn't just a man.' to why that bible verse doesn't apply to him) leaves you open to attacks on the caims i mentioned earlier.

The whole point of bringing up mary magdalene was to show that he wasn't dead, and that the only disciple that in your NT stayed with him to the end, knew that he was still alive. your bible is contradictory among other things, which i will not say, and seriously, get off this topic. you started this, and i ended it it. don't try and bring it up again. it's as i mentioned before sickening, as well as completely distracting. however i rest assure in my knoweledge of the bible to not wait over 4 days to reply, so thats a small relief. 

 

you know what. your religion is yours. my religion is mine. keep your belief intact or not, i dont really care. if im gonna waste my time, i'd rather it be on something of actual value, where my knoweledge of the subject is at least equal to those around me, and where there is no way i can possibly insult someone's religion because as i mentioned before, i don't really like debating religions. in the end, as i said before, you keep your religion to yourself, keep your belief intact. i dont really care if you bring a christian perspective on whatever topic is to be spoken on next, just stop with this endless rambling. weve seriously been debating this thing for like a page and a bit!!

all love and no offence meant as long as you don't bring it up again,

 

Talalrulez

[ILoveJesus]

@talalrulezI will not get off this topic because it bothers me that you actually think that you've disproved the resurrection.

3 hours ago, talalrulez said:

lol this part just made me cringe. friday is day 0, siphr inarabic, cero in spanish, nul in dutch. if it started on friday, that means friday is day 0. saturday would be day 1, and sunday would be day 2. wth i even counted them for you previously. cringe was real in this reply. it pretty much set the tone for the rest of your argument: lacking and in a desperate attempt, you called my argument weak. all i derived from your reply is that you seriously haven't read the bible. Lastly on the topic of Jesus, if someone makes a direct statement, there really shouldn't be any metaphors. look at the context. when those jews asked him he called them the sons of an adulterous generation (he basically called their mums *****s) and heap a whole load of insults on them before he specifically said he was gonna "in the belly of the earth for threedays and three nights just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights." the only literary technique one canfind in there is the comparison of events. there are no metaphors. Just because said person usually speaks in metaphors, doesn't mean said person will speak in metaphors all the time

Look, if Jesus was in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights where "three days and three nights" means "any time period that touches three days", and Jesus was in the heart of the earth Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, then he was in the heart of the earth for a time period that touches three days, so he was in the heart of the earth for "three days and three nights". No contradiction. 

3 hours ago, talalrulez said:

Sure Jesus wasn't 'just a man' to paul BUT when critics of the bible ask why Jesus ate and prayed and stated that the power resided with the father and nt with him, bible sholars state that Jesus was still part man and it was the man part of him that needed to complete this. you can't abandon an argument in one instance to defend from another attack. your admitting that jesus was not man at all (please don't deny it, you just stated that Jesus wasn't just a man.' to why that bible verse doesn't apply to him) leaves you open to attacks on the caims i mentioned earlier.

Please explain to me how Paul saying "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27) means that Jesus can't be resurrected. He cannot e referring tbJesus because Jesus isn't going to face judgement according to Paul. And even if you make the mistake of thinking that he does mean Jesus, saying that he died one doesn't contradict a resurrection.

 

3 hours ago, talalrulez said:

The whole point of bringing up mary magdalene was to show that he wasn't dead, and that the only disciple that in your NT stayed with him to the end, knew that he was still alive

Answer two questions for me. Why would Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb mean that she knew he was alive? And why do you think that she's the only one who stayed with Jesus to the end according to the NT? According to the NT, the one who buried Jesus was Joseph of Arimathea.

[talalrulez]

look im doing this as a one-off off my pledge. firstly if friday is day 0, then it touched 2 days, not 3 days. Ive counted the days for you, and you still seem not to understand. this part of your argument is driving me crazy. letme make it clear for you. if you died on friday at say 5:am, on saturday at 5:00 am, you will be considered to have died for one day. enough with that. 

You do know that Jesus prayed, ate ate, and had all the other functions a normal human has. when critics of the bible ask why Jesus prayed, and said that "power is in the lord, my father, and not with me", bible scholars say the part human in him had to do that. Humans will have a resurrection one day according to the bible, and fter that, you can't touch them. If jesus is part man, that means he is susceptibe to this resurrection, yet if he was indeed resurrected, why hide from the romans and jews. do you not understand what a contradiction means.

Lastly, it wasn't that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb that i was caring about. It's what she said when she came to the tomb. cbf finding it in the bible. watch the link below from 1:01:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDN8cJs41I

also, i say that she was the last one to the end, considering all the other disciples were too bothered to find out for themselves whether Jesus died or not, and instead, relied on the words of the romans and jews around them. 

capische. seriously, im not responding anymore. all you're doing is making up excuses.