It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity

[rational experiences]

Basic human advice.

Did healthy humans not sacrificed exist first?

Yes

Not a scientific theists question. A thinking human natural.

Were humans first with God as status?

Yes.

Ignored answer.

Did a human man not standing on earth get born a human baby by a human mother?

Yes.

Was he only a human baby?

Yes.

Was he with God first? Yes healthy baby.

So why did he get sacrificed standing on earth as just a man?

Scientists removed O God sealed earth.

Oh so man was no longer holy with God as a man baby?

Yes a teaching only.

Reality. A human teaching only.

So did he die that man baby? Yes out of all adult irradiated human DNA. Damaged.

Babies afterwards born by sex were dying around 33 years of age as human proof.

As zero did not exist rationally. It was placed as a calculation. Reasoned effect. Why it was written afterwards.

It was a medical advised science study about sacrificed life to prove science the temple machine had caused it.

Human sex owned the human baby life conceived. Not radiation the moment. Which was also not a metal was gas the spirit body sacrificed by metal burning.

For Satanists today looking for it. To reown it they confess in man's AI statement data. For new machine overheating of a cold metal.

To humans living in the Bethlehem Jerusalem area was where the attack fallout occurred temple blew.

Proven real. Stigmata unnatural blood released out of cells.

As the actual Jesus term. Witness of it. Public advised seen occurring.

Why did humans claim Jesus was a black man? Aware psychic.

Prediction future ebola. Prediction happened in new nuclear converting. As men of science are mind possessed as humans by science.

Proven they were. They don't accept human life is holy first.

Machines beginning is a hot metal. Is not a dust.

Machines reaction is not a dust.

God only owned the dust.

Man is science possessed.

God body already owned partial.dust conversion inside it's own mass. Old science cause

Scientist finished off the reaction.

Reasoned a nuclear dust on the ground is radiating.

 

[KWED]

Um, no it isnt. Where did you hear that?

I have heard religionists make that very claim in many religious debate threads.
One example (which I remember verbatim) was "No amount of evidence could ever weaken my faith".

 

[KWED]

No God-fearing Christian ever tortured anyone to death for asking such questions.

But surely you acknowledge that "god fearing Christians" have tortured people to death for no good reason.

 

[KWED]

Not my experience at all

Surely you accept that historically, and even today (to a lesser extent), schools generally push a Christian narrative on young children.

 

[KWED]

What would you say was the "best" pre-modern culture?

Don't understand the question.

 

[KWED]

The earliest written 40 or so years after Hannibal's death.
Near contemporary is generally considered a fairly good standard for ancient historical text though.

Polybius was alive at the time of Hannibal's later actions, some of which took place in the same region where Polybius lived and travelled with his father, who was an ambassador. He started writing The Histories about 10 years after Hannibal's death, while living in Rome. He maintained that a historian should only cover events whose participants he could question. His several years in Rome would have given him many such opportunities regarding Hannibal.

 

[KWED]

Without looking this up - I understand neither of them lived in Hannibal's time or
interviewed anyone who did.

Wrong. Polybius' and Hannibal's lives overlapped by some 20 years, and Hannibal spent some of his later years in the region where Polybius lived. He started writing his Histories while living in Rome about 10 years after Hannibal's death, and interviewed many people involved in the events concerned.

If this is so we are back to square one - with a
primary source we need to discard a lot of ancient history. Trash it completely,
like we are doing with the bible.

It is not "The Bible" that is being dismissed. It is the tales of magic it contains.
If Polybius had written that Hannibal had summoned fire-breathing dragons to carry his troops over the Alps, we would be sceptical of that also.

Many ancient texts that contain tales of magic are based on actual people and events that are embellished in order to elevate beyond the ordinary.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, Jesus cannot be a Jew, and at the same time try to draw all men to God, including the Gentiles. It's either a new religion, or it remains the exclusivity of the Jews, and only proselytes allowed that convert to Judaism.

Jesus abrogated the Law, ending the Levitical precepts and the covenant of circumcision. As a Jew, he obeyed the Law in order to be deemed perfect, and consequently qualify for the final Yom Kippur.

For all intents and purposes, Jesus started a new religion.

Paul started a new religion. Jesus remained a Jew. And where Jesus spoke of following Jewish religious proscriptions, he was talking as a Jew, to other Jews. Jews then and now are not evangelical, and do not believe anyone else needs to become a Jew to find accordance with God. That does not mean Jews do not believe that humans don't need to find an accord with God in their own way. And it was to this ideal that Jesus addressed himself.

 

[KWED]

Well, Pliny claimed people had magical powers.

And he was almost certainly wrong. The complete lack of any evidence for magic means we can dismiss his claims.

I take biblical prophecies to have magical powers - I mean, how did bible know the Jews
would be scattered all over the world, suffering persecutions and in the last days, when
the Gentiles no longer believe, that the Jews would return to take their nation by force, and
rebuild the desolate country.

There are no specific, accurate prophesies in the Bible. We have been through this before. The actual texts do not correspond to your claims.

Just two months ago we found that the magical destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, struck
from the heavens, actually happened in an air burst over the Jordan Valley 1650 BC, the year
when Abraham was celebrating his 100th birthday.

Again, we have been through this recently.
It was not a "magical destruction". It was entirely natural and without need of a god's intervention. (BTW, remember that it is merely an hypothesis. We are not certain it happened). We do not have any exact date for the event, and the character of Abraham has no historical basis so any claim about his age or when he lived is pure speculation.
So, if it did happen all this shows is that the people writing the Bible knew about a previous event that occurred in the region. WOW!

 

[KWED]

There is absolutely no time or purpose to eat, drink and be merry.

Christmas must be a right laugh chez DNB.

 

[KWED]

Sorry, Jesus cannot be a Jew,

And yet, he was. Go figure!

 

[KWED]

The question was about Christianity, you weren't aware?

So if Jesus had been released instead of Barabbas, there would be no afterlife for Christians?
Phew, that was lucky!

 

[PruePhillip]

And he was almost certainly wrong. The complete lack of any evidence for magic means we can dismiss his claims.

There are no specific, accurate prophesies in the Bible. We have been through this before. The actual texts do not correspond to your claims.

Again, we have been through this recently.
It was not a "magical destruction". It was entirely natural and without need of a god's intervention. (BTW, remember that it is merely an hypothesis. We are not certain it happened). We do not have any exact date for the event, and the character of Abraham has no historical basis so any claim about his age or when he lived is pure speculation.
So, if it did happen all this shows is that the people writing the Bible knew about a previous event that occurred in the region. WOW!

So... what would give Abraham historic accuracy? Some text OTHER than the bible?
Someone said the 'bible is guility until proven innocent' and that's an interesting idea.
A person's identity is proven with a fragment of papyrus, but can't exist if it's in the bible.

But people said there were no domestic camels in Abrahams day - now proven wrong.
that Abraham didn't buy a parcel of land for burial purposes - now proven wrong.
that Abraham could never have seen cities destroyed from the heavens - now proven wrong.

Yes, the biggest, most accurate prophecy is of the Jewish Redeemer Messiah who would die
for the people who rejected him. And the second biggest is that the Jews will lose their nation
as a result of that rejection but will return in the latter days to reclaim it. That's now, we are
still in 'biblical times.'

 

[Augustus]

Don't understand the question.

You said in response to the idea that Christianity produced more good than bad:

"I can't think of anything that couldn't have also been achieved without the intolerance and supremacism."

I was wondering which pre-modern society you believe produced the most good and the least bad.

 

[KWED]

So... what would give Abraham historic accuracy? Some text OTHER than the bible?

Yes. Some independent, corroborating record or archaeological evidence.

Someone said the 'bible is guility until proven innocent' and that's an interesting idea.

Not familiar with that. Who said it and what did they mean by it?

A person's identity is proven with a fragment of papyrus, but can't exist if it's in the bible.

A mention of a character in myth and legend is not evidence they actually existed.
Do you believe that Achilles was actually invulnerable because his mother dunked him in the river Styx as a baby? There are plenty of mentions of this in ancient texts, so it must be true, yes?

But people said there were no domestic camels in Abrahams day - now proven wrong.

Who said that? When was "Abraham's day"?
It has long been suggested that camels have been domesticated for up to 5000 years.

that Abraham didn't buy a parcel of land for burial purposes - now proven wrong.

If there is no evidence for when Abraham lived, or if he even existed, how is there evidence of his land deals?

that Abraham could never have seen cities destroyed from the heavens - now proven wrong.

You're just making stuff up, aren't you?

Yes, the biggest, most accurate prophecy is of the Jewish Redeemer Messiah who would die for the people who rejected him.

One of the problems with such claims is that the stories that are supposed to be the prophecy fulfilled have not been verified. All the prophetic fulfilment narrative could have been constructed to fit the expectation. We know that there are historical inconsistencies with the Biblical narrative, which was constructed some time after the supposed events.

And the second biggest is that the Jews will lose their nation
as a result of that rejection but will return in the latter days to reclaim it. That's now, we are
still in 'biblical times.'

And of course, the actual texts of the prophecies rarely bear any resemblance to the events claims to be their fulfilment. This is why religionists never quote the actual texts but rather just make the sort of unsubstantiated claims that you do.

 

[KWED]

You said in response to the idea that Christianity produced more good than bad:

"I can't think of anything that couldn't have also been achieved without the intolerance and supremacism."

I was wondering which pre-modern society you believe produced the most good and the least bad.

Nope. Still don't see the connection.
But in answer, it's not something I've thought about. You?

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes. Some independent, corroborating record or archaeological evidence.

Not familiar with that. Who said it and what did they mean by it?

A mention of a character in myth and legend is not evidence they actually existed.
Do you believe that Achilles was actually invulnerable because his mother dunked him in the river Styx as a baby? There are plenty of mentions of this in ancient texts, so it must be true, yes?

Who said that? When was "Abraham's day"?
It has long been suggested that camels have been domesticated for up to 5000 years.

If there is no evidence for when Abraham lived, or if he even existed, how is there evidence of his land deals?

You're just making stuff up, aren't you?

One of the problems with such claims is that the stories that are supposed to be the prophecy fulfilled have not been verified. All the prophetic fulfilment narrative could have been constructed to fit the expectation. We know that there are historical inconsistencies with the Biblical narrative, which was constructed some time after the supposed events.

And of course, the actual texts of the prophecies rarely bear any resemblance to the events claims to be their fulfilment. This is why religionists never quote the actual texts but rather just make the sort of unsubstantiated claims that you do.

My favorite text concerning the return of the Jews actually speaks of an event which is yet to
happen. Yes, the Jews are back, ALL OF THEM Ezekiel 38,39 say. That speaks of future anti-
semitism driving them out of nations like America. Yes, they will repair a ruined land. But they
are invaded by nations (back then) which were Libya, Ethiopia, Iran and Magog - part of modern
Russia - the nation to Israel's uttermost north. But Ezekiel did not know the name of Israel's
principle defender, only that it on the sea or over the sea - the nation that would 'send fire' upon
Magog, 'from the north.' Which sounds a contradiction - only a nuclear war will happen over the
north pole.

We have evidence that the practice of stranger burial plots in Canaan, as described in Genesis.
There is an execration text which appears to mention one such allotment belonging to one
Abraham. This guy was born 1750 BC and witnessed the air burst over what today is Tall El-
Hammon which resulted in the deaths about 50,000 people - and may have led to the over-
throw of the Egyptians same year. The Pharoah that Joseph stood before was a Cannanite,
just like himself.

Ancient City's Destruction by Exploding Space Rock May Have Inspired Biblical Story of Sodom | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

 

[KWED]

My favorite text concerning the return of the Jews actually speaks of an event which is yet to
happen. Yes, the Jews are back, ALL OF THEM Ezekiel 38,39 say. That speaks of future anti-
semitism driving them out of nations like America. Yes, they will repair a ruined land. But they
are invaded by nations (back then) which were Libya, Ethiopia, Iran and Magog - part of modern
Russia - the nation to Israel's uttermost north. But Ezekiel did not know the name of Israel's
principle defender, only that it on the sea or over the sea - the nation that would 'send fire' upon
Magog, 'from the north.' Which sounds a contradiction - only a nuclear war will happen over the
north pole.

I have read that passage and it does not contain any of the details you claim. You are merely imposing your own wild interpretation on text that says none of what you claim.

If you disagree, present the actual words of the original text and then break it down, line by line, and explain what each part refers to in your "prophecy". I am guessing that you won't, because it simply doesn't work.

We have evidence that the practice of stranger burial plots in Canaan, as described in Genesis.
There is an execration text which appears to mention one such allotment belonging to one
Abraham. This guy was born 1750 BC and witnessed the air burst over what today is Tall El-
Hammon which resulted in the deaths about 50,000 people - and may have led to the over-
throw of the Egyptians same year. The Pharoah that Joseph stood before was a Cannanite,
just like himself.

You've lost me here. Looks like some of your text has got jumbled up?

 

[joelr]

It's a funny thing, Atheists see Prokaryotes having sex in rocks 3.5 billion years ago, but a man who lived 2000 years ago that changed the entire Western world might not have lived at all. Atheists hope that God doesn't exist, so they certainly have to make his son go away!

No atheists see evidence in fossils that prokaryotes existed. Which is reasonable because life existed then. There has never been good evidence for anything supernatural.
There is excellent however that most of the early OT comes from Mesopotamian myths and the historical aspects are also incorrect. Even better evidence that Christainity is a combination of Hellenism and Persian myth, both cultures who occupied Israel during the time the changes were made?
Evidence that all the gospels were copied from Mark and that he was writing a myth, in a mythic literary style and using narratives from the OT (verbatim), Pauls letters and other fiction and any other mention of Jesus outside the gospels are historians saying that there are a group of people who follow the gospels.
Several other religions before Christianity were also Hellenized so Jesus is the last version of a dying/rising savior demigod who underwent a passion to get the followers into the afterlife.

Atheists would rather have an afterlife (another addition from the Greek myths) and generally have no interest in living some crazy sinful life like the ridiculous apologetic suggests. Most want to work and spend time with family and help the community? They just don't believe myths are actually true?

 

[joelr]

However, I doubt it will have any effect on Christianity.
Or, do you think it will?

Now that there is a peer-reviewed book by a credible historian that outlines the evidence it's going to have an effect.
On the Historicity of Jesus by Dr Richard Carrier
He's done at least 10 good debates that are on youtube and answered all reviews that were negative on his blog. So his work has not been countered. Except with super butthurt people who just claim he's "crazy" or "a devil" or some way to just write him off.
He's doing a lot of social media as well on podcasts so the information is getting around. He debates Canadian Catholic a few months ago and completely smashed him but CC seemed to be in denial later on his podcast?