There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Thrillobyte]

Did you read what I said?

I said:

​

"It just means that the scope was exaggerated in the gospels. Even the apostles could have existed and performed miracles, but their sphere of influence could have been exaggerated. If the events were actually much smaller, involved less people, had less impact, then the historians wouldn't have written about them. And that's assuming they would have written about them at all."​

You're saying:

​

"According to the gospels Jesus was so famous over all Israel and Judea and even beyond into neighboring countries, he was like Donald Trump. He was a rock star. "​

Right! So the lack of writting by the historians indicates, he wasn't a rock star, he wasn't that famous! It doesn't mean the entire story is a lie, or that the miracles didn't happen. It just means that the scope was exaggerated. THAT, I think, is a fair moderate conclusion to make.

And now that I've read through the entire thread, I see you've shared some of your life experiences as a Christian. And I'm sorry that Christianity didn't work for you. It makes me sad to hear what some people do with Christianity. But people are people, people do what people do. That doesn't make the story completely false either. It just means that believing in Jesus is not the panacea some people make it out to be. It can be transformative. But it can also be harmful if people take it too far, just like anything.

So how do you exaggerate a bunch of dead bodies rising from the grave and going into town and talking to thousands of inhabitants???? Come on, dy, you grasping at straws here. You're laying whitewash on Matthew so think he's going to look like the White Zombie himself.

 

[Colt]

So how do you exaggerate a bunch of dead bodies rising from the grave and going into town and talking to thousands of inhabitants???? Come on, dy, you grasping at straws here. You're laying whitewash on Matthew so think he's going to look like the White Zombie himself.

Its one of the unfortunate edited additions to the story. It never "rang true" to me. Neither did Noah's flood, parting sea's, God directing war captives to be killed etc. The problem with making a book a sacred fetish is that people tend to force themselves to believe things, not because they sound true but because those stories are in the sacred book. The Bible isn't really one book, its a bunch of books of varying quality and accuracy. Books that were in the hands of the elite political priest class who were guided and manipulated by human fears.

 

[F1fan]

Its one of the unfortunate edited additions to the story. It never "rang true" to me. Neither did Noah's flood, parting sea's, God directing war captives to be killed etc. The problem with making a book a sacred fetish is that people tend to force themselves to believe things, not because they sound true but because those stories are in the sacred book. The Bible isn't really one book, its a bunch of books of varying quality and accuracy. Books that were in the hands of the elite political priest class who were guided and manipulated by human fears.

How are any of those less plausible than an almighty God existing? Couldn't an almighty God make all those happen? If believers are willing to believe anything on faith why not believe everything on faith?

 

[Thrillobyte]

Did you read what I said?

I said:

​

"It just means that the scope was exaggerated in the gospels. Even the apostles could have existed and performed miracles, but their sphere of influence could have been exaggerated. If the events were actually much smaller, involved less people, had less impact, then the historians wouldn't have written about them. And that's assuming they would have written about them at all."​

You're saying:

​

"According to the gospels Jesus was so famous over all Israel and Judea and even beyond into neighboring countries, he was like Donald Trump. He was a rock star. "​

Right! So the lack of writting by the historians indicates, he wasn't a rock star, he wasn't that famous! It doesn't mean the entire story is a lie, or that the miracles didn't happen. It just means that the scope was exaggerated. THAT, I think, is a fair moderate conclusion to make.

And now that I've read through the entire thread, I see you've shared some of your life experiences as a Christian. And I'm sorry that Christianity didn't work for you. It makes me sad to hear what some people do with Christianity. But people are people, people do what people do. That doesn't make the story completely false either. It just means that believing in Jesus is not the panacea some people make it out to be. It can be transformative. But it can also be harmful if people take it too far, just like anything.

If you read the whole thread then you know my whole objection with Christianity is that Christianity is built on a non-existent man god that churchmen tried to turn into a human being to appease the people they were trying to appeal to. They erected all sorts of false doctrines such as salvation by faith, purgatory and "believe in Jesus or go to hell for eternity" to entice or bludgeon people into joining their faith. After they grew powerful the bludgeoning turned into actual threats of death if pagans didn't join. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's nothing honest about Christianity--all their doctrine is manufactured exclusively to benefit them and not their constituents. So of course they exaggerated and outright lied in the gospels--because it served their purpose. It was never about saving people; it was ALWAYS about accumulating wealth and power for themselves. Most of them didn't believe in Jesus, anyway. He was just an avatar tool to further their own ends, a figurehead to identify themselves.

 

[Thrillobyte]

You asked why prayer cannot be tested. What was tested was closer to witchcraft. Yes, it does talk about God's will be done. That's the Lord's P-R-A-Y-E-R.

9 So then, this is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

????????

 

[Thrillobyte]

Well, first of all, the audience were Jews. So those things about darkness, and earthquakes, and the dead rising, are all end-time prophecies in the OT. It's not about differentiating Jesus from the pagan gods, it's about confirming him as the Jewish moshiach.

I'm not changing the trajectory of the story, I'm reducing it.

So, this is how I understand it, and, you're welcome to disagree. If the gospel writers were God fearing people, they would be fearful of misquoting Jesus and of writing a story that did not accurately represent his actions. So, what they did was collect the stories of Jesus or the Jesuses, plural, ( there could have been several ), and then collate them into the gospels. As more stories came in, the differetn gospels were written, each one adding to the previous story, or adding a different perspective. But the gospel writers would not want to fabricate something. They wouldn't want to get zapped by lightning. I'm kidding, but you get the idea.

I think Bart Ehrman speaks about this a little bit, but from a different perspective. He says something like, "If the gospel writers were fabricating a messiah, they would have made him differently. More perfect, more successful." I agree. There's things in the gospels which are natually objectionable to Jewish people, but these elements were included in spite of that. Eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood, are anti-thetical to Jews. It's an obvious deal breaker for Jewish people, but this was included because, the authors didn't want to leave out something accurate about their Lord and saviour. If they wanted to fabricate a perfect Jewish messiah, they would have left this out.

So, the authors wouldn't lie about Jesus' words or actions if they were God fearing. They would include every word and deed as accurately as they could. But! Exaggerating those supernatural events after his death? There's wiggle room there. There's also wiggle room when it comes to how many people were fed by the loaves and fishes. You see, there's loopholes that a person can employ when it comes to bending the truth about setting and scope and events after Jesus' death. But a God fearing author would not do that when it comes to what Jesus said, and what Jesus did.

That's what I think.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion but it's all speculation. Do you have any actual citations from well-known theologians, preferably secular ones to bolster your hypotheses? I deal only in facts as dictated by the secular historical record and I'm not the only person who believes the Jesus of the gospels is a mythical creation. Have you ever seen this, dy? What's your opinion of the Rank-Ragland mythical scale

Lord Raglan, in 1936, developed a 22-point myth-ritualist Hero archetype to account for common patterns across Indo-European cultures for Hero traditions, following myth-ritualists like James Frazer and S. H. Hooke:[2]

1. Mother is a royal virgin
2. Father is a king
3. Father often a near relative to mother
4. Unusual conception
5. Hero reputed to be son of god
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7. Hero spirited away as a child
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country
9. No details of childhood
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13. Becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully
15. He prescribes laws
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17. Driven from throne and city
18. Meets with mysterious death
19. Often at the top of a hill
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him
21. His body is not buried
22. Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

When Raglan's 22 point outline is used, a Hero's tradition is considered more likely to be mythical the more of these traits they hold (a point is added per trait). Raglan himself scored the following Heroes: Oedipus (21 or 22 points), Theseus (20 points), JESUS (20 points) Romulus (18 points), Heracles (17 points), Perseus (18 points), Jason (15 points), Bellerophon (16 points), Pelops (13 points), Dionysos (19 points), Apollo (11 points), Zeus (15 points), Joseph (12 points), Moses (20 points), Elijah (9 points), Watu Gunung (18 points), Nyikang (14 points), Sigurd (11 points), Llew Llawgyffes (17 points), King Arthur (19 points), Robin Hood (13 points), and Alexander the Great (7 points).[2]

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Jesus shares 20 of the 22 points of other mythical gods?

​

 

[Thrillobyte]

Its one of the unfortunate edited additions to the story. It never "rang true" to me. Neither did Noah's flood, parting sea's, God directing war captives to be killed etc. The problem with making a book a sacred fetish is that people tend to force themselves to believe things, not because they sound true but because those stories are in the sacred book. The Bible isn't really one book, its a bunch of books of varying quality and accuracy. Books that were in the hands of the elite political priest class who were guided and manipulated by human fears.

So why doesn't God step in to correct this obvious dishonesty? Are you aware how many people drop out of Christianity because they come to realize the OT is just a collection of mythology? The Bible is the greatest atheist maker in the world.

These 11 verses turn Christians into Atheists. How do you explain them?​

Certain verses in the Bible do more to cause people to become atheists than help people love and follow God. These are atheist maker verses.

These 11 verses turn Christians into Atheists. How do you explain them?

Certain verses in the Bible do more to cause people to become atheists than help people love and follow God. These are atheist maker verses.

redeeminggod.com

 

[Alien826]

It’s just true! Playing the victim for sympathy gets people a lot of mileage. It’s their identity and an excuse all wrapped up in one.

I reacted emotionally, but what you said struck a nerve. It was so like telling people in pain to "just suck it up", or a to a child "life's not fair, get used to it". Where's the empathy? Don't you feel sympathy for her just a little? How about acknowledging just how difficult is is to get past these kinds of experiences, especially when we were young and don't understand why adults that are supposed to look after us treat us so abominably?

In my personal experience, the first and most helpful thing you get in therapy is the counselor acknowledging that your pain is real and empathizing with your feelings. The relief that comes from someone finally saying that what you suffered was wrong and your anger is a reasonable response is almost tangible. "Just get over it" .... not so helpful. It devalues everything you feel.

 

[Alien826]

OK, let's say that happens. What happens when the messages stop? What happens in 1000 years? Would anyone still believe?

Why would they stop? I'm talking about a god instituting a totally new way of dealing with us.

 

[Alien826]

@Sgt. Pepper He also did not seem to understand what heaven and hell was. Maybe he'll learn. I hope so.

I think John Lennon probably had the typical understanding of religious beliefs that was common in the UK at the time. I was a contemporary of his and can relate. Among young people, Christianity was in serious decline. I doubt he ever looked into it in any depth or read the Bible. Christianity was seen as a dusty old belief system that people who went to church adhered to. Young people had better things to do with their lives.

So, half formed concepts about what Christian beliefs were is about what you can expect.

 

[Windwalker]

I couldn't disagree more. Even Paul is wise enough to say that a Christian should never marry a non-Christian. He was wise enough realize that was like mixing oil and water in a pan over a flame.

There's an issue in your interpreting that verses to mean don't marry someone who doesn't think identically with you. That's not what it's talking about, and if so, it would directly contradict what Paul says in many other places in his writings about not letting differences in belief between Christians stand in the way of unity in the Spirit of love. Please read the entire chapter of Romans 14, for a prime example of unity within a diversity of beliefs as I spoke of.

So what of unequally yoked then? What Paul is speaking of has to do with faith in God verses no faith, or 'faith in the world system' to put it another way. He is speaking of good versus evil, light versus dark. That has nothing to do with Christians, or anyone else having different views and ideas about God. It has to do with what path in life you are taking, either being a servant of following the ways of the Divine, or following the ways of the world. But clearly, you can have those taking the "higher road", having differences of beliefs! But they are all still on the higher road.

An example of that might be someone who is trying to get healthy and quit drinking and smoking and lazing around all day, is not served well by hanging out all day with those who do. If they are choosing to follow a better path, they need to choose those friends who support that goal, not encourage them to just give into their baser desires. But that does not mean only associate with those on the path of good health, that believe the same way you do about politics or matters of personal beliefs about God. As long as they too believe in good health, you'll be served better being friends with them, even if they have different ideas about their personal views of God in their life.

That is what the point of the unity of love is all about. Not letting our different ideas about things create divisions. Hence, unity in diversity. It is the common bond of love that unites, versus the artificial bond of 'same beliefs'. There is a whopping, qualitative difference between these. All being people of the "red flag", and basing your love and acceptance of others on sameness, is shallow. If you have an opinion of your own, you get shunned. That is not a true, unconditional, universal love. It's a conditional, provisional 'acceptance' based upon compliance.

The definition of unity is:
a) the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness
Similar words; accord; to be consistent or in harmony : agree

None of this sounds like diversity to me, walker.

Diversity has to exist for there to be unity. As I said before, there is a big difference between unity and uniformity.

Unity refers to the union or harmony of a group of people whereas uniformity is the state of always having the same form, manner, or degree. The key difference between unity and uniformity is their acceptance of differences; when there is unity, people tend to tolerate and accept differences, but uniformity implies that everyone is alike, so there is no room for differences.​

​

Difference Between Unity and Uniformity | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

Key Difference - Unity vs Uniformity Although many people think that the two words unity and uniformity are the same, there are several differences betwe

www.differencebetween.com

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I reacted emotionally, but what you said struck a nerve. It was so like telling people in pain to "just suck it up", or a to a child "life's not fair, get used to it". Where's the empathy? Don't you feel sympathy for her just a little? How about acknowledging just how difficult is is to get past these kinds of experiences, especially when we were young and don't understand why adults that are supposed to look after us treat us so abominably?

In my personal experience, the first and most helpful thing you get in therapy is the counselor acknowledging that your pain is real and empathizing with your feelings. The relief that comes from someone finally saying that what you suffered was wrong and your anger is a reasonable response is almost tangible. "Just get over it" .... not so helpful. It devalues everything you feel.

It has been my experience that the vast majority of Christians I've met in my lifetime are completely apathetic to the suffering of others and are pompous, obnoxious jerks. The Christian you replied to and a couple of others on this forum have repeatedly proven my point. In my opinion, they are the perfect example of why I believe Christianity is so toxic and detrimental to people's mental health. One reason I left Christianity is because of Christians like them.

In fact, the Christian you responded to reminds me of the evangelical pastor who, after I confided in him about the abuse I endured while growing up, told me that it was clear to him that I'm a cursed soul, that God hates me, that since I was born out of wedlock, God allowed me to be abused as a punishment for the sins of my biological parents, and that there was nothing I could do to change God's mind about me. Sadly, I believed him because the Bible states that God hates and punishes people for generational sins. Grant it, this was the same pastor that informed the rest of the church congregation that God is loving and merciful, that he is their heavenly father, and that he loves them unconditionally. To be quite honest, given these examples, I am not surprised that people (young adults) are leaving the Church and abandoning Christianity (see here and here). It won't die out, but I hope that it seriously declines.

 

[Windwalker]

I pride myself on the fact that I NEVER tell a lie or falsehood to further my position. I'd be happy to debate you on every single point you claim I am wrong on.

Let's start with this:

My source:

Scholar Bart D. Ehrman says there is no record of Jesus having lived in these sources. In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence zero, zip references. In other words, there is no non-Christian evidence from the first century of a “historical Jesus.”

Are you going to dispute a renowned scholar with impeccable credentials?

You already saw I was not referring to the OP in my post, but to answer this, I'll say I agree with Ehrman. But that does not mean there is other way to validate the historicity of Jesus, versus him being a wholly made up out of whole cloth mythological creature, as some fringe authors purport.

This is not to say of course that what you read in scripture should be considered historical proofs. Of course not. They are not written as historians, not even Luke. They are religious materials meant to inspire faith in the communities of believers. Those Christians who try to read them otherwise are missing the point of them.

 

[Windwalker]

One reason I left Christianity is because of Christians like them.

I'm particularly fond of this quote from Ghandi,

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”​

 

[Alien826]

It has been my experience that the vast majority of Christians I've met in my lifetime are completely apathetic to the suffering of others and are pompous, obnoxious jerks. The Christian you replied to and a couple of others on this forum have repeatedly proven my point. In my opinion, they are the perfect example of why I believe Christianity is so toxic and detrimental to people's mental health. One reason I left Christianity is because of Christians like them.

Without doubting your experiences, my own are very different. I had a "rush of religion to the head" some years ago, and attended a United Methodist church for many years. (I got better!).

I found that people like that were conspicuously absent from those I knew. Mainly they were good hearted folks that concentrated on the more loving side of Jesus. There's a saying that men create god in their own image (reversing the Bible quote). To sum it up, people have their own natural feelings about what is good, and find a church that reflects those feelings. This applies to both the Christians that made your life so miserable and those that I knew. If you are filled with love, you will gravitate to a church, and set of beliefs, that you feel comfortable with. There, the loving side of your nature will be supported and validated. If you are hate filled you will find a church that tells you that god is hateful and wants you to be the same.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The point of the article was that NO prayers get answered that scientists could discern.

This is the one area where believers make testable claims. Usually, they simply say that God is undetectable so we needn't bother to look for a god, but here they've claimed that their god DOES modify reality if prayed to, which claim has been falsified.

Contrary to the belief of some, and contrary to how it is written in some places, prayer is an appeal for God's will to be done. It is not a recipe, or magic, or boiling water on the stove.

Not in Christianity.

You can't test prayer like you can test for a virus.

Sure you can. As you've been told, it's been done.

No one suffers when they're dead because -- they're dead. Any statement to the contrary must be examined carefully with good sense.

Good sense is also called critical thought. Bringing good sense to the matter doesn't work out well for faith-based systems of belief.

How could God's ways NOT be higher than our ways if God is All-Knowing and All-Wise?

And if "God" doesn't exist, then what you are calling God's ways are the ways of other people, most of whom aren't very wise or knowing, and who don't care about you or me - only this imagined god and what they have been told (and believed) that it wants. Look at what's being reported by believers as God's ways on this thread. People have guessed that they are better ideas than they are because they believe they come from a god, which is the whole point of speaking through the voice of an alleged god. People stop thinking and simply obey. Mission accomplished.

If we are believers we take it on faith that everything that happens is ultimately for our own good, because God wants what is best for us.

How good a plan is that if this god doesn't exist? The church taught that kings were sitting on their thrones because God willed it, and God knows what's best for us. Humanism teaches that man must decide such issues. We've seen the fruits of each approach. The powerless serf and subject of the Middle ages was replaced by the autonomous citizen with a vote and guaranteed personal rights and freedoms.

The Sermon on the Mount teaches otherwise. It says to stand down, little man. Accept your lot. Meekness is blessed. Longsuffering is divine. If smitten, give your abuser the other cheek. Your reward comes after death. They promise!

My tradition, humanism, said no to this door-mattery, and took up arms against an abusive king. This was the beginning of modernity -the rejection of such books and their received "wisdom."

Most people who drop out of Christianity don't do so because they did not get what they wanted from God. They drop out because they finally come to the conclusion that the Christian doctrines make no sense at all and/or they realize that the Bible is not what they thought it was.

I went into Christianity thinking that the doctrine made no sense, but I suspended disbelief for several years. That never changed. Once it became clear that Christianity couldn't deliver on its promises, I returned to atheism. I concluded that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist. Does that story support or contradict you?

We can choose to do Gods will or reject salvation. Not everyone wants to survive.

What a burden they've saddled the believer with - the belief that he needs salvation. If you accept that - and why would you? - they own you.

It is Gods giving and lovable nature to share himself by giving life to his children who if they choose can grow up to be like God. Endless service, eternal adventure, experience and joy!

We call that promise of a great reward following death pie-in-the-sky, the promise that cannot be made in good faith or guaranteed, the promise that cannot be verified, and the promise that need not be kept to continue enticing people to conform generation after generation for some pie.

You haven't learned to forgive like Jesus forgave those who tortured and murdered him! If you ever do you will finally be free!

That's your model for forgiveness? There is nothing admirable about forgiving people as they kill you.

Besides, she's free now - free of that dreadful religion. And forgiveness is overrated if it means anything more than disengaging and moving on. Why forgive anything without a sincere expression of remorse, which is different from mere regret? You paint this picture of people burning with anger and rotting from the inside out because that which they disdained once they still disdain.

Maybe that's been your personal experience, but it's not been mine. The people I actively despised for a time are now people that I merely disrespect and avoid, and my rejection of them and what they stood for is wholesome and nurturing, not destructive. One was a former faithless girlfriend and employee who embezzled from me over thirty years ago. It didn't work out well for her, and it was at my hand.

Am I burning inside because of it? No. I'm still triumphantly telling the story. I still consider her vermin, but only when I think about her, and it gives me satisfaction. I'm sure you disapprove, but you have a different sense of how that feels and how it affects life thereafter and are bound to respect somebody else's values for you - value that serve them, not you (see the Sermon on the Mount discussion above).

You get too much milage out of being the victim!

I hope she continues to share her story whenever appropriate. Hopefully, she has saved copies of her posts for future cut-and-paste.

You said you want to be angry then stay angry! That is your choice!

I support her choice. It's done her good, and it's helped others understand Christianity in ways you won't get from believers. And she's happy.

This is like the blowback from Trump supporters, who will do anything to inhibit unflattering discourse about Trump, hence "Trump derangement syndrome" and "living in your head rent-free." It's intended to embarrass and inhibit those who express their righteous indignation at that failure of a life. But the argument is impotent there, too.

 

[Thrillobyte]

There's an issue in your interpreting that verses to mean don't marry someone who doesn't think identically with you. That's not what it's talking about, and if so, it would directly contradict what Paul says in many other places in his writings about not letting differences in belief between Christians stand in the way of unity in the Spirit of love. Please read the entire chapter of Romans 14, for a prime example of unity within a diversity of beliefs as I spoke of.

So what of unequally yoked then? What Paul is speaking of has to do with faith in God verses no faith, or 'faith in the world system' to put it another way. He is speaking of good versus evil, light versus dark. That has nothing to do with Christians, or anyone else having different views and ideas about God. It has to do with what path in life you are taking, either being a servant of following the ways of the Divine, or following the ways of the world. But clearly, you can have those taking the "higher road", having differences of beliefs! But they are all still on the higher road.

An example of that might be someone who is trying to get healthy and quit drinking and smoking and lazing around all day, is not served well by hanging out all day with those who do. If they are choosing to follow a better path, they need to choose those friends who support that goal, not encourage them to just give into their baser desires. But that does not mean only associate with those on the path of good health, that believe the same way you do about politics or matters of personal beliefs about God. As long as they too believe in good health, you'll be served better being friends with them, even if they have different ideas about their personal views of God in their life.

That is what the point of the unity of love is all about. Not letting our different ideas about things create divisions. Hence, unity in diversity. It is the common bond of love that unites, versus the artificial bond of 'same beliefs'. There is a whopping, qualitative difference between these. All being people of the "red flag", and basing your love and acceptance of others on sameness, is shallow. If you have an opinion of your own, you get shunned. That is not a true, unconditional, universal love. It's a conditional, provisional 'acceptance' based upon compliance.


Diversity has to exist for there to be unity. As I said before, there is a big difference between unity and uniformity.

Unity refers to the union or harmony of a group of people whereas uniformity is the state of always having the same form, manner, or degree. The key difference between unity and uniformity is their acceptance of differences; when there is unity, people tend to tolerate and accept differences, but uniformity implies that everyone is alike, so there is no room for differences.​

​

Difference Between Unity and Uniformity | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

Key Difference - Unity vs Uniformity Although many people think that the two words unity and uniformity are the same, there are several differences betwe

www.differencebetween.com

We'll have to agree to disagree, wind. The best relationships I've seen do not involve diversity. A classical music lover can never be happy with a hard rock teenybopper. But this is miles off the topic of the thread.

 

[Alien826]

You can't test prayer like you can test for a virus.

Here's how. First prepare a test tube and a petri dish. There should be no trace of prayer in either one. The experiment should be conducted as far away from any church as possible to avoid contamination. Put a cork in the test tube and a Bible page in the petri dish, to form an environment where your prayer can be allowed to multiply in a friendly environment.

Pray one (only one!) prayer. Capture the prayer in the test tube and carefully transfer it to the petri dish. The dish should be kept in a prayer free enclosure. Observe the dish over several days. You should see multiple prayers form that will eventually fill the dish. These prayers can then be tested by observing their content, and they can also be applied to sick people to see if they recover.

 

[Thrillobyte]

The Sermon on the Mount teaches otherwise. It says to stand down, little man. Accept your lot. Meekness is blessed. Longsuffering is divine. If smitten, give your abuser the other cheek. Your reward comes after death. They promise!

Qualities the Romans would have loved to see in their conquered subjects, which is probably why they had a lot to do with the formation of Jesus' philosophy of meekness and turn the other cheek.

 

[Colt]

So why doesn't God step in to correct this obvious dishonesty? Are you aware how many people drop out of Christianity because they come to realize the OT is just a collection of mythology? The Bible is the greatest atheist maker in the world.

These 11 verses turn Christians into Atheists. How do you explain them?​

Certain verses in the Bible do more to cause people to become atheists than help people love and follow God. These are atheist maker verses.

These 11 verses turn Christians into Atheists. How do you explain them?

Certain verses in the Bible do more to cause people to become atheists than help people love and follow God. These are atheist maker verses.

redeeminggod.com

Because we have free will as individuals, as religions, as governments etc. Human wisdom must evolve. God didn't even inter fear with the Lucifer rebellion becuse he was afforded time to repent.

For many Christians their faith in God is greater than their knowledge of the scripture books.