Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My favourite aspect of the Exodus story is how they supposedly wandered on the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years even though if just the men stood shoulder-to-shoulder, they would form a line long enough to stretch from one side of the peninsula to the other.

Indeed--- and look at the path that Hannibal and his Elephants took across Europe and Asia. In far less time... with fewer people...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes, wandering, 3500 years ago, with distinct Laws governing their cleanliness.

What would you expect to find, Snickers wrappers laying on the ground?

What’s “LOTS of evidence”, to you?

We have archaeology evidence of people dating back 40,000 to 50,000 years. People leave all *sorts* of things behind, most notably garbage dumps, which contain broken tools, bones, unusable clothing, etc, etc, etc.

NONE OF THAT EXISTS to support the obviously MYTH STORY of Exodus.

 

[ecco]

It sounds a lot like the stories of Zeus ...Then the story becomes even more like that of Jesus except for one thing... the stories of Krishna and his birth came at least 1,000 years before Jesus.

All religions are, at least in part, based on previous religions. That includes yours.

 

[Jainarayan]

All religions are, at least in part, based on previous religions. That includes yours.

Hinduism grew out of Vedic religion which very likely grew out of Proto-Indoeuropean religion. PIE religion gave rise to the other indigenous religions of Europe (Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse/Germanic) and parts of Asia (e.g. Balto-Slavic). It was more like a part of PIE morphed into Vedic religion, which morphed into Hinduism. I'm not aware of what is now Hinduism borrowing from other religions.

 

[Deeje]

Your problem here-- and it is a LARGE problem-- is that you have NO records of such a crucifixion (apart from your claim, bible--which you cannot use as proof of itself).

The "crucifixion of Jesus" is not recorded anywhere else. That makes the entire narrative highly doubtful.

Especially considering the very oldest versions of the Gospels do not contain resurrection at all.

I am sure it suits you to believe that.

"The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44.

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145."

Jesus Christ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[ecco]

Whose narrative do you believe I'm quoting? Please be specific.

Atheists, of course.

What, exactly, is the atheist narrative that you say I have been parroting?

According to your holy book, god caused a world-wide flood that killed almost all humans. Is that not genocide?

Is the dropping of the two atomic bombs, genocide?

So, you concur that God's killing of almost all humans was genocide.

According to your holy book, God, in the form of the Holy Ghost impregnated a young virgin to which He was not married. Is that not rape?

Definition of rape

1: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception (Merriam-Webster)

So.... no

So, yes. Read and understand the definition you posted.

 

[ecco]

British Museum & Evidence of Israelite Slavery in Egypt

Do you realize that you are offering as evidence an article written by a Rabbi that quotes from Exodus.

ETA: Did you bother to read the article?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I am sure it suits you to believe that..

It's not a matter of belief. It IS a matter of evidence-- you simply don't have any.

"The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23..

Circular Argument Logical Fallacy: you cannot use your bible to "prove" your bible.

Fail.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts..

Too little, too late-- Josephus wasn't born early enough to be an Historian. He was repeating stories he'd heard elsewhere. As such? He cannot be proof nor evidence.

Moreover, it's been proven pretty well, that the Josephus is fake, so twice-fail.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44..

Again? Too little, too late-- he wasn't born early enough. Not contemporary, as such, repeated hearsay.

This is old stuff, here-- christians have been desperate to "prove" the Historical Jesus, and failed, for quite a long time, now. It's kinda pathetic to attempt for twist these into some sort of "proof".

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145.".

1976????! !! LMAO! Oh. My. That's hilarious! You had to go back 40 years to get an old article to agree with you!

MODERN scholarship no longer feels pressure to conform to the myths anymore. Such as the power of Christian Privilege waned.

It wasn't THAT long ago when you would be FIRED for daring to question the Jesus Myth. This is no longer the case...

Jesus Christ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

100% biased website, and absolutely worthless if you do not already believe in the myths.

 

[ecco]

What would you expect to find, Snickers wrappers laying on the ground?

Lot's and lots of skeletons.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Lot's and lots of skeletons.

Human and otherwise. Yes-- and pottery shards, old scraps of fabric (it was a desert after all-- which preserves human artifacts very very well) and other human-made things.

 

[Deeje]

And I continue to wonder why those who do believe in Jesus and the God of the Bible fight so strenuously, shriek so loudly and jump through flaming hoops to prove they do exist. Whom are these people trying to convince? Those of us who follow other paths don't (need to) do that.

The reason why other paths do not require "preachers" is because there is little to preach about. Life is life and it just leads to more life, sometimes better, sometimes worse. Adherents are not required to proselytize because there is not much to have to inform people about, except to perform venerations and festivals to idols that represent gods as invisible as mine....but Christianity involves a time of judgment, wherein all humanity will be judged by one God. We believe that there are decisions to make that will affect the future for all of us.

The message of God's intervention in this life is what will result in its continuation, not in heaven or some spiritual realm, but right here on earth where God put us in the first place.....so we are instructed by our God (through his son) to put humanity on notice. If we want our life to continue, then we need to take note of what God says in his word and bring our lives into harmony with his standards.
Everything we need to know is in one book, provided by the Creator to inform us about his intentions. We are told to share that information. We are not told to force it on anyone, but to deliver the message and allow people to make their own decisions about it.

People call my God a 'false God', or that I'm being led astray by demons. That's fine if they believe that, I know otherwise. My relationship with him is not to prove his existence or woo others to him. It's between me and him. If someone is interested, I'll explain as much as I can. If someone begins to challenge me and my beliefs, then I shut down the conversation. There is no leg lifting contest to see whose God can beat up whose God, or will the real God please stand up.

We all have free will and can believe whatever appeals to us spiritually speaking......those who reject the notion of any gods are also free to believe as they please. But informed choice is the only one worth making. This is why my God asks us to share his message and to encourage them to evaluate his actions, past, present and future. Because there is a demonic push to distort what the Bible teaches, many people are misled about what the Creator's original purpose was in creating this earth and its creatures. Most have some misguided notion that everyone goes to either heaven or hell. There is no such scenario in the Bible.

The only choices we have ever had is....obey and live....disobey and die. That's it.
That is what I believe and that is why I defend my God and his word. It is also why I offer the message that Jesus instructed his disciples to share. All are free to accept it or reject it if they wish.

 

[Deeje]

It's not a matter of belief. It IS a matter of evidence-- you simply don't have any.


Circular Argument Logical Fallacy: you cannot use your bible to "prove" your bible.

Fail.


Too little, too late-- Josephus wasn't born early enough to be an Historian. He was repeating stories he'd heard elsewhere. As such? He cannot be proof nor evidence.

Moreover, it's been proven pretty well, that the Josephus is fake, so twice-fail.



Again? Too little, too late-- he wasn't born early enough. Not contemporary, as such, repeated hearsay.

This is old stuff, here-- christians have been desperate to "prove" the Historical Jesus, and failed, for quite a long time, now. It's kinda pathetic to attempt for twist these into some sort of "proof".



1976????! !! LMAO! Oh. My. That's hilarious! You had to go back 40 years to get an old article to agree with you!

MODERN scholarship no longer feels pressure to conform to the myths anymore. Such as the power of Christian Privilege waned.

It wasn't THAT long ago when you would be FIRED for daring to question the Jesus Myth. This is no longer the case...


100% biased website, and absolutely worthless if you do not already believe in the myths.

If you say so...time will tell, won't it....?

 

[nPeace]

You know, you’re right, to a point.

Many were open to paranormal events, considering them “power of the gods” as you stated. But I think resurrections, ie., bringing people back to life, would have been too hard for nonwitnesses to accept. Satan could perform many miracles (deceptively getting people to think their god did it), but raising the dead was / is beyond his ability. Spirit is needed for life, and only Jehovah has that. —Ecclesiastes 12:7

And giving that ability (to resurrect) only to His Son. — John 6:44; Matthew 28:18
Thank goodness for that, huh?

You are correct.
I was just showing why people would have had no problem with powerful work, but of course it would have been amazing to see the ones Jesus performed.
Wasn't it funny when the blind man that was healed mocked the Pharisees?

Persons with the right heart would obviously not have acted like Pharaoh, and those religious leaders. They humbly accepted the clear proof.

You see the connection right.
Pharaoh saw powerful works beyond anything he had ever seen, but because he felt his gods could do equal works through his priest, he stubbornly refused to admit the truth. Pride and arrogance got in the way.

The religious leaders in Jesus' day could see that Jesus' miracles were beyond the signs they saw performed by others, but they put those on par with those signs. Their arrogance got in the way.

Today that patterns evidently continues. I believe people can see a marked difference between those practicing the truth, and those promoting falsehood, but they put them all in the same bag. But what...

As it ended for Pharaoh, and those Jewish leaders, so it will be today.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you say so...time will tell, won't it....?

It already has. 2000+ years of "he's coming back any day now" -- and you christians STILL have nothing.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

... acted like Pharaoh, ...

But. The bible clearly states Pharaoh had no choice in the matter. He had no free will. He was never even given a chance, in fact.

All according to scripture. And why? The bible also says: to glorify god in the wanton murder of Pharaoh, his men, and all the babies of Egypt-- just for good measure.

In truth, it's a horrible story of god-commanded murder and death.

All for the "glory" of bible's god, of course. It even says so...

 

[nPeace]

But. The bible clearly states Pharaoh had no choice in the matter. He had no free will. He was never even given a chance, in fact.

All according to scripture. And why? The bible also says: to glorify god in the wanton murder of Pharaoh, his men, and all the babies of Egypt-- just for good measure.

In truth, it's a horrible story of god-commanded murder and death.

All for the "glory" of bible's god, of course. It even says so...

I'm quite sure if I explained that to you a zillion times, you would still say the same thing.
Do you want to hear it again?

 

[Kenny]

Yet you cannot point to a secular, or even a University source? And all I'm doing is pointing directly to the bible itself-- only without cherry-picking or pretending the words don't mean what is actually written...


Absolutely NOT! All I ever ask of theists? Is have their god show up and say, "Hi!" or other similar deeds.

...

Let's see how true you are to what you are saying:

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature | Open Yale Courses University level.

Downloadable. Second transcript

Quote: "The oldest written materials of Christianity are actually the letters of Paul. This may come as a surprise, because you get to the gospels first in the New Testament. And most people assume, "Oh, the gospels, they're about the life of Jesus. That must be the oldest stuff." Well, the gospels are actually all written after the letters of Paul were written by 20 or 30 years. So the oldest material we have are the letters of Paul. And the oldest one of those letters is 1 Thessalonians, probably, dated to around the year 50 or thereabouts."

If the "oldest written materials" from Paul is dated around 50 AD, and the Gospels were written after that date by 20 to 30 years, that caps it at 80AD.

What you gave me, was the dates of actual books that are still in existence.

So.... now that I gave you a University statement... do you change your position of thought?

 

[Kenny]

What, exactly, is the atheist narrative that you say I have been parroting?

So, you concur that God's killing of almost all humans was genocide.


So, yes. Read and understand the definition you posted.

Bean me up Scotty.

 

[Kenny]

Do you realize that you are offering as evidence an article written by a Rabbi that quotes from Exodus.

ETA: Did you bother to read the article?

If you can't attack the evidence, attack the author.

Can you come up with something with a little more substance?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm quite sure if I explained that to you a zillion times, you would still say the same thing.
Do you want to hear it again?

I can easily read the actual bible. Apparently? It would appear, that you cannot.... of course, I don't possess the special rose-colored glasses which "translate" what is actually written there, into what bible "apologists" wish it would have said...

I suppose I should have sent in the 50 cereal box tops?