There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Thrillobyte]

Speaking of putting heads in the sand... I asked repeatedly about this 20 out of 22 score you gave Jesus and used that compare him to Hercules. Since you didn't answer, I researched the Rank-Raglan rating of Jesus. It appears I was correct about that. Confirmed by James F. McGrath PHD, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature Butler University. Notice the PHD? That defeats @joelr's Pretty Hopeless Defense of Carrier "uh, uuh, ya got a PHD?"

I honestly didn't ignore your post because I didn't see it. But to respond, what does PhD have to do with anything? You saw the 22 mythotypes that Ragland lists. How many of them fit Jesus? Let's forget my 20 which may have been a stretch and go with joelr's 19. What are the odds that it's just a coincidence that Jesus fits 19 of 22 specific characteristics of half a dozen mythical men gods of other pagan religions? How many zeros do we put after 10? Any statistician will tell you the odds of such a large number of identical characteristics showing up are so infinitesimal that such a number would reach to the ends of the universe and back. But it's a whole different game when Christians want to talk about the odds that Jesus would fulfill 400 Old Testament prophecies. NOW the Christians want to discuss impossible odds. But bring up impossible odds of Jesus' life by chance reading exactly like other mythical gods and suddenly Christians say, "No, I don't want to discuss it." That's what I mean about Christian duplicity. They will go to any lengths to argue for impossible odds if it supports their contention Jesus was the son of God, but they completely clam up and bury their heads in the sand when it comes to anything that doesn't support their argument.

What you'll read is that Jesus ranks an optimistic 4 on the scale. With extreme optimism it's a 9.

Come on. Let me demonstrate once again the incredible similarities between Jesus and other mythical gods. We'll have to make a regular practice on this in order to demonstrate how inaccurate your link is and how accurate Ragland's is:

1. Mother is a royal virgin - YES, mother is a virgin, royal in the Christian sense that Mary was of the line of King David according to arguments that try to explain away the discrepencies between Matthew's genealogy and Luke's
2. Father is a king - Yahweh, supreme deity, this works
3. Father often a near relative to mother - nope
4. Unusual conception - YES, virgin birth, supreme God impregnates mortal
5. Hero reputed to be son of god - YES
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, YES
7. Hero spirited away as a child - YES
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country - technically yes, Yahweh is his father
9. No details of childhood - YES
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom - returns and establishes the kingdom of Yahweh
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast - he becomes victor over Rome and Satan by defeating death
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor) - nope
13. Becomes king - King of kings is used for Jesus often
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully - he has a missionary and for a while it's peaceful, then things get troublesome
15. He prescribes laws - YES
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects - YES (remember "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?")
17. Driven from throne and city - executed
18. Meets with mysterious death -YES
19. Often at the top of a hill - YES
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him - exactly, no children succeeding him
21. His body is not buried - YES
22. Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs - YES

I count 11 solid Yes's. I won't argue that Jesus comes from a royal line of King David or that no children succeed him or that Pilate called him, "Jesus, KING of the Jews" or that he was reared by a foster parent (Joseph) If I did that would raise the characteristics to 15. All that would demonstrate is that Matthew and Mark altered the details from other mythical gods in line with how they wanted their own mytho-typical man god to read.

Lastly, now that it's known Carrier is a liar. Why should anyone take him seriously?

That is incredible hyperbole. He says the same things as any other mythicist so why not call all mythicists liars?

he [Carrier] claims that Moses is a Rank-Raglan myth

Carrier isn't the only person that notices the similarities between Jesus and Moses. Rank-Ragland themselves put Moses at 20 out of 22 points.

LOL. As if that actually exists. EXACTLY like the lives of half dozen earlier mythical man gods? Yeah right. An ordinary rational person would be ignoring that statement. It's too exaggerated. Come back to earth Mr. Thrillobyte. Come put your feet on the ground and come out of the clouds...

Are you going to claim there's secular historical evidence for Jesus? Please tell us what evidence you have.

 

[lukethethird]

How can that be? An entire religion with 2.6 billion followers based upon unverifiable stories written by unknown authors?
Yet one more reason for Christians to become atheists.

Well, my religion does not teach that the NT is verifiable so I am sitting pretty....
The facts about Baha'u'llah ARE verifiable so I am sitting double pretty.

Baha's claims are as ridiculous as anything I have ever read but not surprising considering religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Acts is a fable wherein angels of the Lord partake and have speaking roles, people witness Jesus bodily rising up into the clouds, sure, what is embarrassing is that believers point to Acts as proof of anything other than a fable.

Christians cite the following verses in order to 'try to prove' that the same Jesus in the same body is going to return to earth as they believe he went up into the clouds.

Acts 1:10-11 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

This is all they have to hang onto in order to sustain their belief that it will be 'the same man Jesus' returning, even though Jesus said he was no more in the world and his work was finished here ((John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30). Talk about contradictions in the Bible!

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the gospels (acts and paul)

There was a guy named Jonh( the Baptist)

A guy named James (the brother of jesus)

A guy named Pontius Pilate

A guy Named, caiphas

A guy names Jonh (apostle)

A guy Peter (Apostle)

Etc.

These are all historical people whose existence is verifiable and that where accuretly described in the gospels.

So if the authors of the gospels (acts Paul) claim that there was a guy named Jesus (who was crucified, had disciples etc.)

Then the historicity of this person(Jesus) is likely to be real.

Please ether grant or refute the argument,

You just made the Spiderman argument. And only some of those people are known from secular sources. It is not a good argument.

How do you deal with the testable two different birth dates for Jesus?

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha's claims are as ridiculous as anything I have ever read but not surprising considering religion.

What about them is ridiculous? I'm waiting.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baha's claims are as ridiculous as anything I have ever read but not surprising considering religion.

I know practically nothing of Baha's claims, except for his supposed "prophecies". Those are on the same order as the prophecies of Nostradamus. And if one knows why Nostradamus's prophecies fail they also know why Baha's fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, but why don’t you refute my actual argument, for why I grant these sources as historically valid?

Are you talking about your Spiderman argument? You were using a very poor argument for the reliability of the Gospels. Oh and your pathetic "argument from embarrassment" one too. That is a laugh. It only tells you that the people making that argument cannot be honest about themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about them is ridiculous? I'm waiting.....

Bring up your best "fact" about Baha that somehow supports that he was a messenger of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know practically nothing of Baha's claims, except for his supposed "prophecies". Those are on the same order as the prophecies of Nostradamus. And if one knows why Nostradamus's prophecies fail they also know why Baha's fail.

I do not know if you are talking about (a) Bible prophecies that Baha'u'llah fulfilled or (b) predictions/prophecies that Baha'u'llah made which have come true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bring up your best "fact" about Baha that somehow supports that he was a messenger of God.

I don't know how many dozens of times (I lost count) that I have said that there is no way that any alleged Messenger can be proven to be a 'Messenger of God' for obvious logical reasons.... Nobody can ever prove that God exists....
What we are left with is evidence that indicates that He was a Messenger of God.

 

[dybmh]

Come on. Let me demonstrate once again the incredible similarities between Jesus and other mythical gods. We'll have to make a regular practice on this in order to demonstrate how inaccurate your link is and how accurate Ragland's is:

1. Mother is a royal virgin - YES, mother is a virgin, royal in the Christian sense that Mary was of the line of King David according to arguments that try to explain away the discrepencies between Matthew's genealogy and Luke's
2. Father is a king - Yahweh, supreme deity, this works
3. Father often a near relative to mother - nope
4. Unusual conception - YES, virgin birth, supreme God impregnates mortal
5. Hero reputed to be son of god - YES
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, YES
7. Hero spirited away as a child - YES
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country - technically yes, Yahweh is his father
9. No details of childhood - YES
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom - returns and establishes the kingdom of Yahweh
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast - he becomes victor over Rome and Satan by defeating death
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor) - nope
13. Becomes king - King of kings is used for Jesus often
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully - he has a missionary and for a while it's peaceful, then things get troublesome
15. He prescribes laws - YES
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects - YES (remember "My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?")
17. Driven from throne and city - executed
18. Meets with mysterious death -YES
19. Often at the top of a hill - YES
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him - exactly, no children succeeding him
21. His body is not buried - YES
22. Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs - YES

• Mother is a royal virgin - YES, mother is a virgin, royal in the Christian sense that Mary was of the line of King David according to arguments that try to explain away the discrepencies between Matthew's genealogy and Luke's

But it is highly unlikely that this is what Rank-Raglan intended when they developed he scale.​

This is no different than misinterpretting evidence for historical-Jesus and pretending that it is evidence for gospel-Jesus.​

This should be a no.​

Mary is not royal.​

Jesus was not raised royal.​

She's not royal in the way Rank-Raglan intended​

• Attempt to kill hero as an infant, YES

Ah. I missed this one. Thank you. That brings my count to an optimistic 5.​

• Hero spirited away as a child - YES

Taken to egypt by his parents? That's a stretch.​

• No details of childhood - YES

No. Luke 2.​

• Often at the top of a hill - YES

Often? What? 3 times.​

• His body is not buried - YES

Yes it is. Joseph of aramethia takes him down and buries him in a cave.​

I count 11 solid Yes's. I won't argue that Jesus comes from a royal line of King David or that no children succeed him or that Pilate called him, "Jesus, KING of the Jews" or that he was reared by a foster parent (Joseph) If I did that would raise the characteristics to 15. All that would demonstrate is that Matthew and Mark altered the details from other mythical gods in line with how they wanted their own mytho-typical man god to read.

11 is a lot different that 20. I disagree on 5 of the ones you flagged as strong yes's. And quite a few more that you didn't flag as strong yes's.

That is incredible hyperbole. He says the same things as any other mythicist so why not call all mythicists liars?

It depends on what the other mythicists say and how they say it. If they say that Jesus has 20 matches on the Rank Raglan scale, and they publish it in a book, and when challenged on it they double-down, and start name calling. Yeah, they're a liar and they can't be trusted anymore after that until they come clean.

Carrier isn't the only person that notices the similarities between Jesus and Moses. Rank-Ragland themselves put Moses at 20 out of 22 points.

How is that even possible?

I see so many no's there. All I need is three to show that 20 isn't correct.

He didn't have a mysterious death. There is no tomb. Not from a royal family. Had children that suceeded him. Mom wasn't a royal virgin. No battles with any beasts, or kings, or dragons.... Please take a look at that list. There's no way it's even close to 10.

Are you going to claim there's secular historical evidence for Jesus? Please tell us what evidence you have.

Come on... don't be like that. You made a claim that there were EXACT matches to Jesus life. A half dozen examples... come on. Admit it was an exaggeration. It's OK. This is the internet. No one knows you. And admitting it actually increases your credibility, it doesn't diminish it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is. Joseph of aramethia takes him down and buries him in a cave.

Umm, no. You forgot that that did not work Jesus was resurrected so his body is not buried. Of course, that is a pretty sketchy claim since the Romans were not respectful of the religions of the people that that they conquered and the body remaining on the cross was SOP for Roman crucifixions. At any rate if one is arguing for the Jesus of the Bible then the body is not in the grave any longer.

 

[Trailblazer]

Umm, no. You forgot that that did not work Jesus was resurrected so his body is not buried.

Christians cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that Jesus was buried and also say that he rose from the dead.

Christians try to argue that Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus but Isaiah 53:8 and Isaiah 53:9 cannot apply to Jesus because Jesus was not taken from prison and from judgment and Jesus did not make His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. Jesus made His soul and offering for sin but Jesus did not see his seed and his days were not prolonged, so there is no way Isaiah 53:10 can be about Jesus. That is why we know it is about someone else who would be the Messiah of the new age.

'He shall see his seed' means he will have offspring and that 'his days will be prolonged' means that he will live to old age. Jesus only lived to about age 30 so His days were not prolonged. One Christian tried to argue that Jesus saw his seed because the Christians are the 'children of God' and that the days of Jesus were prolonged because he rose from the dead. Talk about grasping at straws!

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

• Bahá’u’lláh was taken from the black-pit prison in Tihrán for judgement before the authorities. His death was expected hourly, but he was banished to ‘Iráq and finally to Israel. In the prison-city of ‘Akká, on another occasion, “… the Governor, at the head of his troops, with drawn swords, surrounded (Bahá’u’lláh’s) house. The entire populace, as well as the military authorities, were in a state of great agitation. The shouts and clamour of the people could be heard on all sides. Bahá’u’lláh was peremptorily summoned to the Governorate, interrogated, kept in custody the first night … The Governor, soon after, sent word that he was at liberty to return to his home, and apologized for what had occurred.” God Passes By, Shoghi Effendi, pp. 190–191.

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

• Bahá’u’lláh was buried in the precincts of the Mansion of Bahjí, owned by a wealthy Muslim. He was surrounded by enemies; members of his own family who betrayed his trust after his death and dwelt in homes adjacent to his burial-place.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

• Bahá’u’lláh did see his ‘seed’. He wrote a special document called the Book of the Covenant, in which he appointed his eldest son to be the Centre of his Faith after his own passing. This very event was also foretold in the prophecies of the Psalms that proclaim:
• “Also I will make him my first-born higher than the kings of the earth … and my covenant shall stand fast with him.” Psalms 89:27, 28
• The ‘first-born’ son of Bahá’u’lláh, was named ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, which means ‘the servant of Bahá’(‘u’lláh). Bahá’u’lláh appointed him as his own successor in his Will and Testament. He called ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the Centre of his Covenant.
• Bahá’u’lláh’s days were prolonged. He was born in 1817 and passed away in the Holy Land in 1892. In the last years of his life, Bahá’u’lláh was released from his prison cell. He came out of the prison-city of ‘Akká and walked on the sides of Mount Carmel. His followers came from afar to be with him, and to surround him with their love, fulfilling the words of the prayer of David spoken within a cave: “Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: the righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.” Psalms 142:7.
• These events in the valley of ‘Akká with its strong fortress prison had been foreshadowed in Ecclesiastes 4:14: “For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.”

Comments from: Thief in the Night, pp. 155-159

 

[nPeace]

None of the New Testament writings about Jesus has been verified except in your dreams.

The authors of this article are not dreaming, so that would have to be you... dreaming, and wishing. Hope you're not rubbing a bottle.

No one that wrote about Jesus ever met him.

Claims you can't even support. So that's just yapping while dreaming and wishing.

No one even quotes from a copy of the New Testament until Justin Martyr writing in the mid second century.

Another baseless claim...
I can see you haven't learned anything. I though my helpful tips, would have jolted you out of that box.
I guess there's not much hope for die hard atheist with no interest in what's actually true.

Where to find the four oldest New Testament manuscripts
Make sure you are sitting when you read the list. I would not want for you to fall.
...but then, I doubt atheists are affected by truth given to them. They have spent so much time shoving it where they can't see it.

We don't even know who wrote the gospels, when they were written or even where they were written, so good luck with that.

What's with this "we" business?
Just say you don't want to know, because most critics don't.
They only admit to things they are reluctantly forced to accept. the deny everything else, but not because we don't know.

Maybe you don't know who wrote this...
He took his army's lead and marched to Carchemish, which is on the bank of the Euphrates. He crossed the river at Carchemish. [...] They did battle together. The army of Egypt retreated before him. He inflicted a [defeat] upon them (and) finished them off completely.

Well, the people who put together this stuff don't say we don't know. They put this out to the public.
Nebuchadnezzar II, also spelled Nebuchadrezzar II, (born c. 630 - died c. 561 BCE), second and greatest king of the Chaldean dynasty of Babylonia (reigned c. 605–c. 561 BCE). He was known for his military might, the splendour of his capital, Babylon, and his important part in Jewish history.

Same with the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Greeks... etc. ...but you don't know who wrote those do you? Do you accept them?

You know, if you said you don't know any history at all, I would actually believe you, and you would be making quite a lot of sense. You would be keeping in line with this.
. . .they became empty-headed in their reasoning. . . (Romans 1:21)

 

[Thrillobyte]

• Mother is a royal virgin - YES, mother is a virgin, royal in the Christian sense that Mary was of the line of King David according to arguments that try to explain away the discrepencies between Matthew's genealogy and Luke's

But it is highly unlikely that this is what Rank-Raglan intended when they developed he scale.​

This is no different than misinterpretting evidence for historical-Jesus and pretending that it is evidence for gospel-Jesus.​

This should be a no.​

Mary is not royal.​

Jesus was not raised royal.​

She's not royal in the way Rank-Raglan intended​

• Attempt to kill hero as an infant, YES

Ah. I missed this one. Thank you. That brings my count to an optimistic 5.​

• Hero spirited away as a child - YES

Taken to egypt by his parents? That's a stretch.​

• No details of childhood - YES

No. Luke 2.​

• Often at the top of a hill - YES

Often? What? 3 times.​

• His body is not buried - YES

Yes it is. Joseph of aramethia takes him down and buries him in a cave.​

11 is a lot different that 20. I disagree on 5 of the ones you flagged as strong yes's. And quite a few more that you didn't flag as strong yes's.



It depends on what the other mythicists say and how they say it. If they say that Jesus has 20 matches on the Rank Raglan scale, and they publish it in a book, and when challenged on it they double-down, and start name calling. Yeah, they're a liar and they can't be trusted anymore after that until they come clean.



How is that even possible?

I see so many no's there. All I need is three to show that 20 isn't correct.

He didn't have a mysterious death. There is no tomb. Not from a royal family. Had children that suceeded him. Mom wasn't a royal virgin. No battles with any beasts, or kings, or dragons.... Please take a look at that list. There's no way it's even close to 10.



Come on... don't be like that. You made a claim that there were EXACT matches to Jesus life. A half dozen examples... come on. Admit it was an exaggeration. It's OK. This is the internet. No one knows you. And admitting it actually increases your credibility, it doesn't diminish it.

You're arguing with the wrong person. You should be taking it up with Rank and Ragland. They were the ones who devised the scale and had their hypothesis been so inaccurate the whole scale would have disappeared long ago. If it survives that musty mean there's some validity to it.

You know, to go back and forth on some of these points is only fodder for discussion which eventually gets us nowhere. The overarching point is that there were enough similarities between Jesus and other mythical heroes to strongly suspect Jesus' story was derived from a plethora of pagan man gods. Add to that the fact that there is no secular historical evidence for Jesus or the apostles and it pretty much becomes an open and shut case for rationalists. My own personal addition to these facts which for me seals the deal is that if God the Father really wanted people to believe in his son and accept him as the savior of mankind, then God would have left behind enough evidence for Jesus to fill a Library of Congress. God, being omnipotent would have had no trouble doing so. The question is why didn't he? We have an incredible contradiction here. God WANTS people to believe in Jesus but God leaves no evidence behind for him. To a rational mind this doesn't make a bit of sense. To hardcore Christian minds it's just business as usual i.e. "God wants to test our faith" "God wants us to believe based on faith without any evidence" "God doesn't want to violate our free will."

I pointed out the last two to Coulter and asked him a simple question:

if Jesus was willing to prove himself risen to thousands of followers back then, why is he so camera-shy today? He certainly wasn't worried about preventing them from living by faith or violating their free will to accept or reject him then. So why now is he suddenly worried he's going to upset their living by faith or violate their free will today?

To which Coulter replied

He appeared to believers, he strengthened their faith. He didn't appear to enemies.

Judas spent a lot of time with Jesus but lost faith!

Which doesn't make a bit of sense because it was the Christians Jesus wanted to believe on faith without seeing him. So if Jesus wants them to believe in him without seeing him, you know "Blessed are they who have believed in me without seeing me" then why did Jesus appear to them? Again, Coulter is trapped by simple logic: either Jesus wants them to believe on faith without evidence, in which case he would never have appeared to the thousands of believers OR Jesus doesn't care about them believing in him on faith without evidence in which case Jesus decides to appear to the thousands of believers. Gotta be one or the other, can't be both. But Coulter wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to argue Jesus wants people to believe in him solely on faith without seeing him but then Jesus goes ahead and shows himself to believers, thus nullifying their believing on faith alone. It's skewered logic but Coulter is free to rationalize away this theological discrepancy any way he wants, it's a free country and nobody gets prosecuted for inane reasoning.

 

[nPeace]

Detailed except no idea where or when he was born
dunno how old when or where he died.
And a few other lil details like about 30
years unaccounted for.




G Wash?
if it had the cherry tree story and the one
about the silver dollar told as Truth, not
so much. If the G Wash book had him
doing miracles, yeah. Dumpster.

If you knew better, I think half the world would just roll over and die, and maybe theism would not exist... but we need atheism. Every one can't believe or accept what's true. Picture a world without denyers. Can you picture it?
I can, but that involves quite a lot of dead people. Not that they'd be missed.

 

[Audie]

If you knew better, I think half the world would just roll over and die, and maybe theism would not exist... but we need atheism. Every one can't believe or accept what's true. Picture a world without denyers. Can you picture it?
I can, but that involves quite a lot of dead people. Not that they'd be missed.

Not even you would find any
meaning in that

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christians cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that Jesus was buried and also say that he rose from the dead.

Well "buried" is the wrong term. He was entombed according to the resurrection myth. But as the saying goes "it did not take".

Christians try to argue that Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus but Isaiah 53:8 and Isaiah 53:9 cannot apply to Jesus because Jesus was not taken from prison and from judgment and Jesus did not make His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. Jesus made His soul and offering for sin but Jesus did not see his seed and his days were not prolonged, so there is no way Isaiah 53:10 can be about Jesus. That is why we know it is about someone else who would be the Messiah of the new age.

'He shall see his seed' means he will have offspring and that 'his days will be prolonged' means that he will live to old age. Jesus only lived to about age 30 so His days were not prolonged. One Christian tried to argue that Jesus saw his seed because the Christians are the 'children of God' and that the days of Jesus were prolonged because he rose from the dead. Talk about grasping at straws!

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

• Bahá’u’lláh was taken from the black-pit prison in Tihrán for judgement before the authorities. His death was expected hourly, but he was banished to ‘Iráq and finally to Israel. In the prison-city of ‘Akká, on another occasion, “… the Governor, at the head of his troops, with drawn swords, surrounded (Bahá’u’lláh’s) house. The entire populace, as well as the military authorities, were in a state of great agitation. The shouts and clamour of the people could be heard on all sides. Bahá’u’lláh was peremptorily summoned to the Governorate, interrogated, kept in custody the first night … The Governor, soon after, sent word that he was at liberty to return to his home, and apologized for what had occurred.” God Passes By, Shoghi Effendi, pp. 190–191.

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

• Bahá’u’lláh was buried in the precincts of the Mansion of Bahjí, owned by a wealthy Muslim. He was surrounded by enemies; members of his own family who betrayed his trust after his death and dwelt in homes adjacent to his burial-place.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

• Bahá’u’lláh did see his ‘seed’. He wrote a special document called the Book of the Covenant, in which he appointed his eldest son to be the Centre of his Faith after his own passing. This very event was also foretold in the prophecies of the Psalms that proclaim:
• “Also I will make him my first-born higher than the kings of the earth … and my covenant shall stand fast with him.” Psalms 89:27, 28
• The ‘first-born’ son of Bahá’u’lláh, was named ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, which means ‘the servant of Bahá’(‘u’lláh). Bahá’u’lláh appointed him as his own successor in his Will and Testament. He called ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the Centre of his Covenant.
• Bahá’u’lláh’s days were prolonged. He was born in 1817 and passed away in the Holy Land in 1892. In the last years of his life, Bahá’u’lláh was released from his prison cell. He came out of the prison-city of ‘Akká and walked on the sides of Mount Carmel. His followers came from afar to be with him, and to surround him with their love, fulfilling the words of the prayer of David spoken within a cave: “Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: the righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.” Psalms 142:7.
• These events in the valley of ‘Akká with its strong fortress prison had been foreshadowed in Ecclesiastes 4:14: “For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.”

Comments from: Thief in the Night, pp. 155-159

Isaiah is a bit of a mess anyway. It was not written when Christians think that it was written. Must of it is history written as if it were prophecy. There is a proper term for that but I just cannot remember it. The "prophecies about Cyrus were almost surely written after it. It is of no help to the Christians once one realizes how it was written.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you knew better, I think half the world would just roll over and die, and maybe theism would not exist... but we need atheism. Every one can't believe or accept what's true. Picture a world without denyers. Can you picture it?
I can, but that involves quite a lot of dead people. Not that they'd be missed.

You really should not be so harsh against creationists.

 

[lukethethird]

The authors of this article are not dreaming, so that would have to be you... dreaming, and wishing. Hope you're not rubbing a bottle.


Claims you can't even support. So that's just yapping while dreaming and wishing.


Another baseless claim...
I can see you haven't learned anything. I though my helpful tips, would have jolted you out of that box.
I guess there's not much hope for die hard atheist with no interest in what's actually true.

Where to find the four oldest New Testament manuscripts
Make sure you are sitting when you read the list. I would not want for you to fall.
...but then, I doubt atheists are affected by truth given to them. They have spent so much time shoving it where they can't see it.


What's with this "we" business?
Just say you don't want to know, because most critics don't.
They only admit to things they are reluctantly forced to accept. the deny everything else, but not because we don't know.

Maybe you don't know who wrote this...
He took his army's lead and marched to Carchemish, which is on the bank of the Euphrates. He crossed the river at Carchemish. [...] They did battle together. The army of Egypt retreated before him. He inflicted a [defeat] upon them (and) finished them off completely.

Well, the people who put together this stuff don't say we don't know. They put this out to the public.
Nebuchadnezzar II, also spelled Nebuchadrezzar II, (born c. 630 - died c. 561 BCE), second and greatest king of the Chaldean dynasty of Babylonia (reigned c. 605–c. 561 BCE). He was known for his military might, the splendour of his capital, Babylon, and his important part in Jewish history.

Same with the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Greeks... etc. ...but you don't know who wrote those do you? Do you accept them?

You know, if you said you don't know any history at all, I would actually believe you, and you would be making quite a lot of sense. You would be keeping in line with this.
. . .they became empty-headed in their reasoning. . . (Romans 1:21)

You might want to read the article you linked to, particularly about sources, it doesn't bode well for your feeble attempt at convincing me of whatever it is you are trying to convince me of. Acknowledging sources is not the same as believing what you are reading, believing is something religious people hang their hat on because they don't know any different, at least not when it comes to religious texts.