Jesus is a Myth

[Fweethawt]

Yup, I did check it out, and I think there is a lot of truth to it.

 

Already with the 12 tribes of Israel, and the 12 disciples of Jesus.

 

For as whacked-out as the religion is, I do think that it is rather cool to find out that a majority of it takes place right above our heads, in the constellations.

[Ouroboros]

For as whacked-out as the religion is, I do think that it is rather cool to find out that a majority of it takes place right above our heads, in the constellations.

 

It makes sense though, when first man tried to understand rain, heat, day, night, and everything else. All wonders came from above. On land everything was pretty much stable, except for earthquake etc. But the sky was the unreachable.

 

So when they tried to find an explanation to the mystery of events in the world, they looked up. The first thing they saw was the sun, then second the moon, then the stars. It all makes sense.

 

And in some way astrology have some validity. I can imagine that peoples behavior could be a bit different depending on which time of the year you're born. Someone born in winter compared to summer. etc. I met one astrologist once while I was teaching and took some additional classes, she said most teachers are Leo, which I doubt, but that's what she claimed. I'm a Leo btw. In Chinese calendar I'm a snake. Maybe we should make a poll on western signs and then one for chinese signs. Just for fun.

[Lokmer]

The mauscripts of the  New Testament were completed around 60ad.

 

Bullshit. The most conservative dating schema, advanced by John A.T. Robinson in his book "Redating the New Testament" dates the latest gospel to A.D. 74. This dating schema has a number of very difficult problems with it, the first being that it ignores Luke/Acts's dependance on Josephus, and the second being that it, and it also makes its entire argument from unfulfilled prophecy. In other words, in order to date the gospels and the pastoral epistles and Revelation before 75, you have to concede that Jesus and Paul were both false prophets.

 

No one dates everything to before A.D. 60.

 

Not even N.T. Wright (the most conservative bible scholar out there.

-Lokmer

[Mythra]

Thanks, Lokmer. Your input here is very much appreciated.

 

Here is a question. WHY? Why did it take so long for someone to start writing Jesus' story down? Do people have the mistaken impression that everyone was illiterate in those days?

 

I mean, think about it for a second. Put yourself in the place of one of the disciples. You have just spent three years with a guy who was walking on water, raising the dead, giving new eyes to guys, (hey, that rhymes) , feeding thousands of people with a basket of food, and all these other miracles. You watched the dude get crucified. You had a sit down dinner with him a couple of days later.

 

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be crouched down in a room, wondering what it all meant. I'd be writing this stuff down. Recording every single thing I could remember. Not wanting to miss a single detail.

 

How did the legends get so out of hand? How did all the other stories get going? I mean, if Jesus had been historical, the first time someone started some different legend about him, someone would immediately have said, no, man. That ain't how it went down.

 

I'll tell you how it happened. Embellishment. Any story you can tell I can tell better. The same thing we see in the gospels. Most scholars that I have read about agree that Mark was the first gospel. All of the earliest manuscripts of Mark end at 16:8. The women found the empty tomb. End of story.

 

Then someone came along and said, oh, let me tell you what happened next. Jesus SHOWS BACK UP! Reveals himself to the disciples for the first time in Jesusalem!

 

Then someone else says, naw. Here's what happens. Jesus SHOWS BACK UP! Reveals himself for the first time to the disciples on a mountaintop in Galilee!

 

Just like the embellishment we see with the story of Jesus on the water. Jesus comes to them walking on the water. Pretty fantastic story. But then someone comes along and says, no dude. That ain't all. Once Jesus gets to the boat, then he has one of the DISCIPLES walk on the water with him! cool.

 

This is the way the gospels came down.

[Mythra]

Yep. "I see dead people". Everyone would have been saying that. Didn't even make a footnote with Josephus. (yet Josephus knew of and wrote about John the Baptist)

 

Not to mention earthquakes and darkness at midday and the curtain of the temple torn from top to bottom and all the rest. It isn't recorded because it never happened.

 

And take a look at the further embellishment once we get to the epistles. Now the risen christ didn't just reveal himself to a few folks, now he reveals himself to 500!

 

Kind of an important detail. Why isn't that in the gospels?

[Japedo]

How dare you say such things!!  I admire your thinking so much, but really, you should be stoned for such heresy. 

 

Seriously, you are so right, I would have wrote down everything too.  Forget the disciples.  If I witnessed dead people coming up out of their graves and walking in  the streets, even if I couldn't write I would have drawn a picture.  Wasn't that witnessed by the masses?

 

 

Exactly, One would think if God himself were really here, it would be THE most recorded event in world history. How come he didn't write anything down himself? No one even knows the "Year" he was supposedly born, I believe all of this evasiveness is because he never was to begin with.

 

Another thing that creeped me out on my journey out of Xtianity. Catholics founded the cult, On the history Channel they had a thing on Vatican City. Did you know underneath some of the most important buildings there is a pagan cemetery Still there. So you see, It was built on paganism in every way shape and form. Also, If you look the next time your in a Catholic Church, there are Suns everywhere, even in all of their pictures. They are the founders of the Religion no matter if Christians consider themselves catholic or not. They gave birth of the religion of Christianity. A lot of the robes and what not worn by priests also look extremely similar to Egyptian priests, especially the head gear . Christ is a son which 12 disciples follow. Much like the Sun-god who was followed by 12 months of the year, everything in Christianity is the same because it's sun worship, He is after all the "morning star" and the "light of the world" just like the sun-god was to the 'pagans'. I feel so foolish for ever believing in it.

[syndacit]

man all this stuff about people not writing down life changing events...

 

I thought I was lazy with my homework....lol

[syndacit]

ya ya its funny

 

sad thing, is it is true!

 

now I have summer school bleh.

 

But back to the topic.

Seriously....If I saw a man walk on water

I would write it down

 

If I got shot, I would write it down...or atleast on the hospital bill...

 

then to play the devils advocate

 

Church did deprive all intelligence to peasents.

Some of the rich couldn't even read

Church had control of all the power in the press

 

so lets flip it back with that said

 

wouldn't only scholars be able to write it down?

Cause only religious scholars knew god back then.

 

and flip it back!

 

that adds onto that they might of tried to written it down but church forbade it

so when scholars started to turn away years end on years end on years later. Thats when it was written

 

and last time flipping it

 

which means that all of it could be exagerated, after years and years of telling of tales

 

I'm such a schitzo

[syndacit]

true dat dog lol

 

lord I apologize, I'm so white

[Ouroboros]

Here is a question.  WHY?  Why did it take so long for someone to start writing Jesus' story down?  Do people have the mistaken impression that everyone was illiterate in those days?

 

I mean, think about it for a second.  Put yourself in the place of one of the disciples.  You have just spent three years with a guy who was walking on water, raising the dead, giving new eyes to guys, (hey, that rhymes) , feeding thousands of people with a basket of food, and all these other miracles.  You watched the dude get crucified.  You had a sit down dinner with him a couple of days later. 

 

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be crouched down in a room, wondering what it all meant.  I'd be writing this stuff down.  Recording every single thing I could remember.  Not wanting to miss a single detail.

 

That's my take on it too.

 

Basically the whole world explodes, and just a few people 30-150 years later writes it down as a little jot in the margin, "oh, by the way, there was this dude that walked on water..."

 

I think we could at least have expected the sanhedrin writing essay after essay about why Jesus was a heretic, but not even that is documented.

[Valgeir]

Goes to show you, people haven't gotten any smarter over the past few thousand years... they'll still buy the old tribal myths.

[DanInPA]

Here is a very thorough site on jesus as solar myth.

[Ouroboros]

How dare you say such things!!  I admire your thinking so much, but really, you should be stoned for such heresy. 

 

Seriously, you are so right, I would have wrote down everything too.  Forget the disciples.  If I witnessed dead people coming up out of their graves and walking in  the streets, even if I couldn't write I would have drawn a picture.  Wasn't that witnessed by the masses?

Considering Jerusalem was a center point for travelers in the region.

It was like the airport hubs in US. If dead people walked in O'Hare, I bet ya' that even if the citizens couldn't write, there would be a'plenty of people having the skills from all over the world.

 

Jerusalem most likely had, all the time, people from all "corners" of the world.

So if there was a conspiracy to cover the truth, it must have been the largest and most successful cover-up in history.

[Saviourmachine]

Acts 5:36-37

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

Hi Yoyo, do you have evidence from secular literature for the existence of these Theudas and Judas of Galilee. When did they live?

[Mythra]

Don't know how many of you are familiar with Dr. Jason Long. He shows up in this forum once in awhile. He has a book out called Biblical Nonsense. Also a website called biblicalnonsense.com. Here is chapter 16 from his book it really shines the light on "the good news" As soon as I read this chapter, I ordered the book. It doesn't appear that he is a firm "mythicist", he takes a little more conservative approach - but this is really an enlightening read.An_Introduction_to_Biblical_Nonsense.htm

[Fweethawt]

Here is a very thorough site on jesus as solar myth.

 

That's another neat little site there, Dan.

 

It's almost just like The Unspoken Bible site.

 

Jesus, who never existed, whose story existed prior to his alleged time, is a personification of the Sun, which dies in Winter and is resurrected in Spring, saving us from the evil of cold and darkness. The story is an allegory misinterpreted as history

[Guest Roamin' Lion]

I just happen to have on my desk an essay by a religious scholar who sent it to me recently. When I was a Christian, I taught myself to read and write biblical Hebrew so I could read the texts in that language. Then, I also studied the history and sociology and archaeology of the times and the region.

 

I also read the talmud and several books on Judaism. What I can tell you is that Jesus really did not say anything that was new or revolutionary...if there was a Jesus. You will find much of what was preached in the Talmud or commentaries on the OT.

 

However, back to the essay. The essay I recommend the work of these scholars who state that Acts is based on the Illiad, the stories of Aeneas and that a lot of what was written by Luke was based on Pauline epistles.

 

The scholars are from the Jesus Seminar. I have found their scholarship to be of the highest caliber. Some mentioned in this essay are Dennis McDonald, Richard Pervo,Christine Shea, and Joseph B. Tyson.

 

Much of what is in Acts is a direct copy of the wording of the Illiad, and the concepts contained within. Some say Acts is a novel set in the first third of the first century, written in the first half of the second century.

 

These scholars show quotes that are almost exact from one to the other.

 

This is a trail for the interested.

 

Exposure to this work will certainly give one food for thought.

[Guest Roamin' Lion]

." It's inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet the extensive historical record of that time makes no mention of Jesus. "

 

 

 

This is from that link you posted.

 

But, I think it is not so remarkable. In the Middle East the written word was no so important as the oral tradition. So much so that a story tell could almost repeat word for word lengthy tales to others. So much so, that if you look at what Jesus purportedly taught, the first few words are from the OT conjuring up in the mind of the hearer the whole portion of scripture as folks memorized it then.

 

We must learn to look through the eyes of folks at that time, and not through the lens of modern practice and values.

[Mythra]

How do you account for Flavius Josephus' account of John the Baptist, then. He goes into quite a bit of detail about John. It is apparent that John is a historical figure. Yet John did no miracles, created much less of a stir than Jesus supposedly did.

 

Check it out. Josephus knew lots of details about John the Baptist. Jesus he never heard of. No one believes that Testimonium Flavianum is genuine. Most believe it is an interpolation of Eusibius in 325 CE.

[Mythra]

You know, no one believes that they can prove the bible completely false. Just as no one can prove that the bible is true. So, what it boils down to, is, what makes the most sense? What, after adding up as much information as you can, seems like a reasonable conclusion?

 

For anyone who's interested:

 

Here is Josephus' account of John the Baptist:

 

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

 

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist. [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt - for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise - believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.

 

And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death, but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod."

 

 

So, you tell me. What is harder to swallow? That Josephus knew all of these things about John, but nothing whatsoever about Jesus?

 

Or that writers used Josephus account of John the Baptist as a convenient historical starting point for the godman Jesus story.

[- AUB -]

YoYo, substantiate, all you've said are articles of faith, not supported by historians or biblical scholars. Here's a comprehensive list of all sources and data on the NT, I suggest you read it all, there is nothing here that is not well attested even by theistic sources. Your fundamentalist propaganda is formed out of necessity due to a blind and naive adherence to tradition, not facts.

 

Mythra

 

John the Baptist was mentioned in the gospels in an attempt to outdo the Baptists by making John a subordinate (Elijah) to Jesus, hoping also to get Baptist converts, the appearance of J the P serves no other purpose prior to the doctrine of adoption. His historical existence like that of Pilot, Herod and the Sanhedrin adds further proof against the gospels as their depictions of these real people and institutions are so removed from reality as to show the bias and fictional nature of the stories.

 

As to Acts, the details YoYo mentioned are again proof it is a fraud, as they were taken from Josephus, I've already mentioned this and would like to add that this is not a matter of opinion, but fact, the evidence is overwhelming. YoYo, all the proofs you offer serve the mythicist position, present more and you’ll see what I mean. However I'd like to include an exert from a book that deals with Jesus as historical, this represents the best theory there is apart from mythicism, and indeed would be my position if mythicism didn’t have the greatest explanatory power.

 

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby.htm

 

Jewish people are a great source for debunking the NT, though they have a religious bias, it doesn’t stop them being right, as the NT is objectively false.

 

Here's another excerpt from Hyam, this time on Paul, and demonstrates an interesting tactic I call "Over-Pitching" that is also used by the gospel of Matthew. It consists of claiming greater knowledge or training than the readers or audience, and making your work appear to be aimed more at better educated or more authoritative people. Matthew claimed the OT prophesied Jesus’ life, knowing full well his readers were not Jewish, and would not be able to check him. (Hence his notoriously bad misuse of scripture) He wanted it to look as if Pharisees and Rabbis would be convinced so the gentiles would think if these experts in God's word are, then so should they be. Lee Strobel does it with his "rational" apologetics, creationists do so with their "science".

 

It's a cynical tactic that exploits the ignorance and naivety of xtians, and allows fools and charlatans to appear more wise and authoritative then they actually are. But just as a real scientist can see the fraud that is creationism, a Jew can see the fraud that is Matthew’s OT "quotes" and Paul’s pathetic attempts to appear Pharisaic. Haven’t Xtians ever wondered why the "King of the Jews" isn’t acknowledged as such by the Jews themselves? Isn’t it because they simply know better? Why else were the people first taken in by Paul and Co's OT claims the least educated on the OT? Why more gentile converts than Jews? The same reason scientists aren’t fooled by creationism but ignorant parents and xtian students are, logicians aren’t fooled by presuppositionalism, historians aren’t fooled by junk like this and rationalists and atheists aren’t fooled by Lee Strobel. Yet all these con-artists claim the people that are never fooled are, (knowing xtians never check their facts) so as to lend greater authority to their lies. This is the single most consistent tactic xtianity uses, and is unique to their cult. Train people to be blind to everything but what you say, and you can claim whatever you want.

[- AUB -]

I decided to dissect YoYos posts just for a laugh. They are so awful I just had to let rip.

 

 

If Christ isnt real, Why did so many people follow His way even in a time when there were many false messiahs.

 

They didn’t, your basing this on the exaggerated figures in the NT, based on the tales of mass conversions of Jesus and the apostles, none of which are verified. All the data we have has xtianity as a small and obscure cult for the first 150 years, hence the lack of reference to them in secular sources. The large numbers were made up, just like the martyr legends as romanticised origins, and to make the cult itself look miraculous. You can’t use the bible’s claims to prove the bible. Also you forget many xtians were practising “heretical” versions, that are not proof of your claims. I wish xtians would stop using the mere existence of their religion as proof of its claims, (what about all the other religions?) this is a ridiculous tactic, do you event listen to yourselves?

 

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ercc20/christianity/index.html

 

 

Followers of Christ today are proof that Christ was not just a myth.

 

How?

 

There are many different types of Christians.

 

This just shows there is no constant and objective truth to it all.

 

Some grew up in church, and others like me did not, and have had a rough life.

 

So what? Muslims have far worse lives overall, their faith remains, its a crutch, and whether you went to church or not your faith is derived from it’s claims, often levelled at those in bad situation as they are more desperate and vulnerable.

 

How is it then that we have around 6billion people on this earth and still Jesus is being followed over 2000 years after His death.

 

This is nonsensical gibberish. Do you even think through what you write? And you wonder why we claim xtians are thick. The number of people around or age of a faith has no bearing on its validity, do you even know there are other religions? Xtianity is one of the newer ones.

 

Another way to veiw this is to say that over 2000 years ago, the pharisees even said (paraphrase), "hey, let them do whatever, if its real then we dont want the hand of God upon our heads, and if its not then it will die out, and they will despirse.

 

Again you’re using the bible to prove the bible, the Pharisees said no such thing, except in your mythology. You can’t use the anti-Semitic and blatantly inaccurate depiction of Jews as proof of anything other than your cult’s vial early attitude. This was invented at least a century after xtianity had started, so as to make them look foolish and the cult victorious. Are you really incapable of thinking outside the bible?

 

Reminds me of a license plate I love. It has a image of Jesus, and says" Still saving lives".

 

 

Big deal, irrational unsubstantiated bolloxs may impress you but not me. Doctors saves lives, your Jesus only saves invisible “souls” which only you lot believe in.

 

Really? Doesnt any sect, cult, or religion that is false eventually start to become nothing.

 

No. Some die out (eventually), others survive due to serendipity or aggressive policies. (Like your cult) Don’t you think all other cults or religions that pre-date or are almost as old as yours are false? Does Islam show any signs of becoming nothing? Are you really so far up your own arse that you can’t see the world around you?

 

Christianity is perceived by many to have been scattered and some even veiw this as to some reason of confusion and falsehood. I disagree.

 

On what grounds? Are you saying there isn’t confusion between denomination? Didn't we suffer centuries of war over such irreconcilable differences? Aren’t each denomination themselves claiming others are false? Is your statement based on nothing more than the need to defend the sorry state of your cult?

 

Are not even the smallest and sometimes closest areas so different from 20 minutes futher down the street. We have all the churches we have because America is one of the largest melting pots of cultures in the world.

 

No, these denominations derive from European and early doctrinal differences, not US culture, study history.

 

Some would say that some difference in churches are due to different readings and understandings from the Bible. I agree, to that being parts of this diversity.

 

Because the bible is inconsistent, contradictory, vague, irrational, immoral, archaic, anachronistic, and inaccurate. When you say “readings and understandings” you mean interpretation, and perversions, based on ideology and agendas.

 

 

Another thing for the Bible accuracy critics. When was the Book of Acts written?

 

 

Between 74 and 132 CE. Josephus's War (Act’s main source) was published in 74 and the earliest reference to Acts is after 132 CE.

 

 

What is the original or today translation of this text?

 

 

There is no original of any book of the bible. “today translation”?

 

If the original is close to the meaning here then there is an answer.

 

There is no way to tell, most translations are dodgey agenda driven and based on copies of copies, with only incomplete and contradictory fragments as the oldest examples. They really do keep you in the dark don’t they?

 

Around two thousand years ago, someone from an ancient document, has said that it.

 

You’re thinking is simplistic.

 

 

If this is accurate to the original translation,

 

That’s a very big IF. No biblical scholar makes such an assumption, it contradicts all evidence.

 

 

of the manuscripts, then this was written way before any alterations to the context of the Bible, or the wording and translations from the church.

 

Your making an assumption based in wichfull thinking, not evidence.

 

 

In essence, my POV is this. Are the Pharisees mentioned above real people?

 

Your POV is an idiot, of course Pharisees are real, they are Jewish people today, are you saying the only source for their existence is the NT? What the hell are you on?

 

Are they questioned to there existence, certainly Ceasar is not.

 

??? Not this tired old argument again; man it’s so weak. We have abundant proof of both the Pharisees and any Caesar’s existence, both primary and secondary. We have none for Jesus, that’s the difference, your kind of illogical sophistry is irrelevant.

 

If these are real people and the documents in original form are to the same wording and context.

 

They are real, the documents are not unchanged, the Josephus connection shows how much the material is warped.

 

Then wouldnt that mean for people today that Jesus is real, and the Son of God.

 

No. How the hell do you go from Jews being real to Jesus being real AND the Son of God? Don’t writers put real people or groups into works of fiction, how old are you?

 

Did his ministry and followers scatter and despirse.

 

Do you have any proof there was a ministry?

 

Are they still proclaiming anything in the name of Jesus?

 

Are they still proclaiming anything in the name of Allah?

 

Are people recieving healing in His name?

 

And dying due to lack of proper medical care. You inhumane bastard.

 

Are people changing there whole lives to be His follower?

 

Or that of any other cult figurehead. This all proves shit. If your religion is true why is it only defended by such pathetic arguments?

 

 

I would like to purchase a true original translation(replica) or reasonable priced original from a latter time that contained the original text. Unfortuniately, I would also have to hire someone to rtanslate. LOL.

 

 

Were the hell did you get the idea there are originals? You have been pumped full of the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard.

 

I guess, thats why I dont look at the text a whole lot, just the context.

 

The problem is you, like most theist think “context” means only the rest of the bible, what about historical, cultural, political or theological context? These are how you study the bible, the rest is a narrow minded and myopic waste of time, you’ll never learn anything.

 

That reminded me of when Jesus said that unless one is more upright than the Pharisees, then one wouldnt see the kingdom of Heaven.

 

This was nothing more than anti- Pharisaic propaganda written by the church as the Pharisees were the principle opponents of Hellenistic cults infiltrating Judaism, (which is what Xtianity is) and so they had to get Jesus to slag them off, so as to distance their followers from the group best suited to refuting all their claims. They had different theologies, not moral standards, but of course the church couldn’t admit that as it had since Paul based its claims regarding Jesus on a supposed superior knowledge and understanding of scripture than the Pharisees, so they had to attack their morals and behaviour, like creationists who claim evolution is evil, as they haven’t a case on scientific (or in the NT’s case theological) grounds. But the real Pharisees were decent and honest, as are Jews today. An attack on the Pharisees then is an attack of them now. You’re warped image of them is based on nothing but the NT, you live in a narrow world, get out more.

 

 

Anyhow, thats why I think that people think to much.

 

Are you admitting that you have to stop thinking to be xtian? Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

 

Some call me stubborn, blind, ignorant, etc..

 

For good reason.

 

I would ask how much harder is it for one to purposely keep there focus and faith in the Lord, and the teachings we have now rather than the writtings of other men that tell different veiws.

 

 

It is not focus or faith you have but ignorance, that’s all you have displayed, (and is the basis of all religion). You show no greater knowledge, make ridiculously fallacial and naive arguments, and appear to have been brainwashed into one view and stick to it through conditioning, even at the cost of your reason and integrity, this is nothing to be proud of.

 

There are many other religions, sects, cults, and hypocrites. God in the book I study, has warned me of all those things.

 

Well of course it does, all cults warn members to stay away from other cults, (or people who know better) how else do you consolidate your control? Can’t you see that? The truth is staring you in the face.

 

My biggest thing is that the Pharisees were not on Jesus's favorite list, and He regularly talked them down for their stubborness, and ignorance.

 

 

And I can talk about yours, did he show greater knowledge? No. Did Paul? No. Did any of the NT writers? No. Have you studied what they wrote? No. So how can you say they were ignorant? For all you know they were better people and wiser than the ignorant xtian gentiles, and had to be demonised or they’d bust the whole sham up. Would it not explain the NT’s attitude? Are you saying the early xtians weren’t illiterate gentiles, on the fringes of society? Most of whom had never been to Judea or met a Hebrew. How could they know they were being told the truth? You just choose to believe the official version, but as you’ve shown no desire to really research or think about theism why should we take anything you say seriously? Have you met any Jews? Are they stubborn, and ignorant? They must be as they’ve still not excepted Jesus, and are living according to pharisaic values, yet they have far less to be ashamed of than xtians.

 

Thats the good news to me. I dont have to be smart and highly thought of by others to believe what I believe.

 

No shit. In fact it helps if you arn’t smart of course.

 

Even, though, when needed and called for, God has given me wisdom about things that normally would go againist my human nature.

 

So why are you such a dumb arse? Your posts are the furthest things from wise I have ever encountered. You admit you are stupid and ignorant yet somehow you are right when all those who are smarter and more knowledgeable than you are wrong, and yet you fail to show why. I find this arrogance and complacency, not to mention slavish obedience to outright lies very disturbing, you need you’re faith crushed for the good of humanity. I will happily oblige. Debate me and I’ll show you why you are wrong about absolutely everything.

[Ouroboros]

-AUB- you have to many quotes (max 10/post), then it un-quotes the text.

 

Use colors instead, I don't think there's a limit on those.

[- AUB -]

Yes thankful, it's clearly screwed YoYo up. The crux of my disagreement here is that YoYo's sources are just a few apologist WebPages and a couple of books, (and maybe the local fundy pastor) whereas my position is based on all science, academia, history, and facts that can be accessed from universities, museums, and millions other sources, bias is never a prerequisite.

Why does it not bother YoYo that only those small fundy groups sprew this garbage that contradicts the rest of reality? I’d never be happy to get all my “facts” from such a limited not to mention isolated paradigm. YoYo clearly doesn’t have a problem with learning from apologist ministries alone, imagine getting all scientific knowledge from fundy xtian sites and never scientists, all history from fundy xtian sites, and never from historians. Why is it that these types of theists can only trust information from other fundy xtians, are they really that insecure, and scared of reality?

[Guest marktaylor]

Thanks, Lokmer.  Your input here is very much appreciated.

 

Here is a question.  WHY?  Why did it take so long for someone to start writing Jesus' story down?  Do people have the mistaken impression that everyone was illiterate in those days?

 

I mean, think about it for a second.  Put yourself in the place of one of the disciples.  You have just spent three years with a guy who was walking on water, raising the dead, giving new eyes to guys, (hey, that rhymes) , feeding thousands of people with a basket of food, and all these other miracles.  You watched the dude get crucified.  You had a sit down dinner with him a couple of days later. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/q

quote]

 

And yet, whenever the "heat was on" these witnesses to god's miracles were "gone fishin!"