Christians BTFO

So 600 pages of garbage, then. The historicity of Jesus isn't disputed but by erich von daniken tier historians that wear the fedora.

>>1081940
When will godless people tire of paying people who pander to their disbelief? I'll check it out, but I really can't imagine anyone spending good money on something like this.

Why do atheists hate Christianity but love Islam?

>>1081951
again the appeal to authority coupled with an ad hominem

>>1081963
It appears to you so because you're not well read on the subject.

>>1081957
what are you talking about? whether you agree with them or not, the so called New Atheists are very anti-Islam. besides making a case for Jesus not existing doesn't necessitate hate. There are certainly parts of Christianity I dislike but my feelings towards it would better be described as fascinated. Christianity's origins are certainly more intriguing than a lolicon spreading his religion through conquest

>>1081981
uh no, your post literally was using those fallacies. make an actual argument

File: g1355504789796992493.jpg (90KB, 473x599px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 473x599px

>>1081957
I'm an atheist, and I have utter contempt for islam.
It is every bit as delusional as christianity or any other religion.

>>1081951
Wrong, christfag.
There is no physical or verifiable evidence that this Yeshuwa actually existed.

The Bible doesn't count as evidence, since it's provenance is dubious, at best.

>>1082069
>cucking for the downfall of western civilization
Thanks anon.

>>1082121
>downfall of western civilization
sounds spooky

>>1082157
What have atheists done for Civilization?

>>1082168
Science. literally every advancement in science and medicine etc

>>1082179
>Science. literally every advancement in science and medicine etc
So? Anyone can do fucking Science. Hell even priests can do it. You know the big bang theory? Made by a priest.

File: 1462058442487.png (1MB, 982x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 982x720px

>>1082021
He's not coming back, bro

>>1082069
>The Bible doesn't count as evidence
It does to actual historians, which is all that counts

>>1082168
why speak of Atheists as a collective group and why use civilization with such a spooky meaning? I guess if I had to give some names of atheists who helped society I'd say Darwin for one. He was Christian while doing his research but he lost his faith when he came up with evolution. Einstein is another. Atheists have been a minority to the extreme until recently so I don't see why it matters if there aren't a lot of self-proclaimed atheists that are well known

>>1082195
> Anyone can do fucking Science
And anyone can live perfectly without religion.

>>1082214
> I guess if I had to give some names of atheists who helped society I'd say Darwin for one. He was Christian while doing his research but he lost his faith when he came up with evolution
No, he lost faith when his peers in the church laughed at him. He's right, but he lost faith because of them.
>>1082222
Proofs?

>>1081957
Why do Christcucks assume that atheists love Islam? I'd say there is a contempt for all the religions, but considering most atheists reside in (nominally) Christian majority countries, they invest most of their efforts to debunking the religious nonsense they are most familiar with first.

Christcucks are dumb.

>>1082207
historians don't consider the gospels to be made by eye witnesses though and can't agree on which parts of the narrative are historical. the only part they agree on is that a guy named Jesus was crucified and they don't justify this with the gospels. they justify it with rather dubious quotes from various Roman historians

>>1081957
They aren't. If anything they hate it even more because it is legitimately more problematic. At least there is no Christian ISIS.

>>1082021
>muh book

That's your "argument". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

Don't ignore the fact that when the Pagan forest-niggers replaced the Romans and forgot everything, it was the Priests and the Monks and the Church folk who saved all that knowledge and brought it back to civilization.

Religion held people together and built the world around you. The only reason you and I are atheist is because it is easy for us to be.

The amount of faith one has is not indicative of their intelligence.
Oh
>doctors
>scientists
Half of those are Hindu these days aren't they?

>>1082195
Your point? Mendel the geneticist was a priest, but only joined the clergy so that the Church would pay for his education, since his life's goal was to obtain tenure at a university. He wasn't particularly religious and hardly ever devoted time for prayer/observance, and even when he was in the monastery, most of his time was spent in an administrative position and studying for civil service exams.

Hardly what I would call a "Christian". Same with the majority of scientists that have been religious - they are only nominally so.

>>1082227
>Why do Christcucks assume that atheists love Islam?
Because the majority do

>>1082236
> Priests and the Monks and the Church folk who saved all that knowledge
Nice way to spell Muslim Scholars

>>1082228
>>the only part they agree on is that a guy named Jesus was crucified and they don't justify this with the gospels. they justify it with rather dubious quotes from various Roman historians

The older josephus quote isn't dubious though, he just said a that a guy names jesus got executed in jerusalem. I actually agree with you about christianity and other forms of theism being bunk and nonsense, but a religious/political dissident named jesus(a very common name for the period btw)being executed for defying the roman/jewish authorities is both perfectly sensible and reasonable.

It's all the miracles and magic and other assorted nonsense that are non-credible.

>>1082248
Muslims didn't do shit tbqh

>>1081957
Because being atheist doesn't mean you're smart. Most of them are Dawkins parroting bots, anyway.

>>1082239
So? He didn't shit on the system and said fuck off to Church. He used it to his advantage and he's still a Christian because he didn't give the Church the middle finger and acted like a total fucking cunt about it.
>>1082248
Who burned Alexandera?

>>1082235
yeah the book CONTAINS the arguments. what argument do you have that not only Jesus existed but he was also the son of God?
>muh book

File: thomas-bayes.png (36KB, 570x329px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 570x329px

> mfw Richard Carrier tries to argue Bayes theorem proves Jesus didn't exist but uses finite frequentism to obtain his priors

>>1082248
I'm not typing that "M" word. You know what I meant.

>>1082236
>it was the Priests and the Monks and the Church folk who saved all that knowledge and brought it back to civilization

Wrong. This is a shitty meme. The Church never fancied itself a protector of knowledge, and most of the works it did bother to preserve were edited to fall in with a Christian worldview. Those works that were of no use to the Church establishment and those that were deemed contrary to Church thought were either outright destroyed or left to rot.

>>1082255
There isn't one that doesn't begin and end with "muh faith" or something akin to that. But this doesn't make jesus not a historical character. It just means he wasn't the son of any particular deity.

>>1082260
>Those works that were of no use to the Church establishment and those that were deemed contrary to Church thought were either outright destroyed or left to rot.
That was on the shit that didn't matter, point is shit got saved.

>>1082236
> Religion built the world around you.
So is thousand years of hunting and gathering so while church played its role that kind of argument isn't the definitive one because times changed for better or worse.

>>1082255
>yeah the book CONTAINS the arguments.

You never read it, you wouldn't know that.

>what argument do you have that not only Jesus existed but he was also the son of God?

But you claimed he never existed, retard.

>>1082249
the Josephus section on Jesus is very dubious though. recent scholars have just started saying without justification that parts of it are original even though previous scholars have thrown out the whole thing on the grounds that it breaks up the flow of Josephus's text

>>1082253
>He didn't shit on the system and said fuck off to Church

Why would he? The point is he joined the clergy solely for temporal benefit (free tuition), and not for any religious zeal. He completed the bare minimum in order to become a clergyman, and then devoted his energies to secular pursuits. So why do Christcucks love to hold him up as an example of how Christcucks have contributed to science? He was hardly one. Only nominally because his family baptized him at birth.

>>1082242
You mean meme minority?

>>1082269
What the catholic church thought didn't matter, you mean.

Personally, I don't trust them or their judgement on anything.

>>1081940

>Carrier

No one takes him seriously. Stop shilling.

>>1082255
We all are sons of god in one way or another...

>>1082260
>something happened a few times
>therefore it happens all the time.
Just stop. This fallacy is very harmful.

>>1082274
>>1082274
But there are two different copies of the text in question though? One where jesus is called the christ and an older one where he isn't. Are both of these disputed and by whom? Furthermore, how many of these whom are there?

>>1082269
>That was on the shit that didn't matter

In history, everything matters. The Church has never been a good protector of documents. Look at how it destroyed the books and documents of all the "heretical" sects it could get its hands on, such that we don't even know what many of them actually believed in.

The Church threw out works that contained more practical information (because it was wrong to be concerned about temporal matter, supposedly) such as those on architecture, engineering, mathematics, sculpture, etc. And concerning other disciplines such as philosophy, it destroyed whatever it could not bend towards a more Christian-like tone.

So no, fuck off with your "the Church protected documents!". It absolutely did not.

>>1082276
>So why do Christcucks love to hold him up as an example of how Christcucks have contributed to science?
Because he's part of the clergy you idiot. Doesn't matter that he wasn't religious or wasn't big on the whole preaching shit, he followed the guidelines and is part of the system.
>>1082279
The Church means the Catholic Church.
>Personally, I don't trust them or their judgement on anything.
Who cares?

>>1082288
source for version of the passage without Jesus being called the messiah? my understanding was that all versions of the text we have right now have that

>>1082289
>So no, fuck off with your "the Church protected documents!". It absolutely did not.
Destroying half the shit isn't as bad as destroying everything and having to start off from zero, be glad at what you have.

>>1082307
You are fucking disgusting.

>>1082307
it could be worse is not a valid criticism

>>1082310
So having nothing is better?

>>1082292
> Doesn't matter that he wasn't religious
It does actually. You can be an atheist while being a member of the church or even a priest.

>>1081940
You can't expect us to buy an unknown read and read it through just to shitpost back.
Provide tl;dr or go pray to Dawkins already.

>>1082326
Why the fuck would an atheist join the Church? Why would he follow any of the guidelines if he's an atheist?

>>1082327
TL;DR
You can prove that Christ doesn't existed in 600 different ways.

>>1082327
Christcucks already go out and read stuff from unknown authors and shitpost about it, so what's the harm?

>>1082334
I proved unicorns exist in 600 different ways. Go buy my $1200 book to find out how.

>>1082330
For free tuition, for one.

>>1082330
You can just stop believe after you joined in. There also other reasons and scenarios.

>>1082330

because the other choice is to chill with pagans who rub each other with shit and jizz and eat babies to make the crops grow better.

Even a rational atheist understands the concept of a single, all encompassing God is logical. Whereas pagans were literally holding humanity down, believing natural events were because they didn't do a retarded dance passionately enough.

>>1082342
Then he's part of the system and breaks a promise with it. Are you saying keeping your mouth shut and not spewing shit about what you believe in is what they did? Because most atheists should take a cue from them.

>>1082340
I can paid for your book in 600 different ways. Just buy mine to find how receive the money!

>>1082276
>So why do Christcucks love to hold him up as an example of how Christcucks have contributed to science?

They don't. We literally have a catalog of heart sworn Christian scientist to pick from.

>>1082349
>Are you saying keeping your mouth shut and not spewing shit about what you believe in is what they did?

Obviously, considering atheism was a crime in most of Europe and the Americas back in those times.

>>1082356
>Christian ""scientistis""

Hovind-tier.

>>1082348
How this is different from natural events being an acts of the one True God™?

>>1082359
So then it's a 50/50 shot if they believe or not. Which means they're part of the system, which ergo means they aren't atheists but don't enough about God but at least acknowledges that he exists.

oh let's examine how amazing the gospel is at portraying "historical" events. let's go to Jesus's crucifixion. Jesus and Barabbas? parallel to the Jewish Passover sacrifice where one is sacrificed and the other set free as a "scapegoat". Jesus being dressed in purple and mocked as King of the Jews? stolen from a passage in Philo of Alexandria's writings where the same thing happens to someone. Casting lots for his clothes? stolen from Psalms. being pierced by a spear? stolen from Psalms. Drinking wine from a sponge? Stolen from Psalms. His heart-wrenching cry on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" That is the first verse of Psalm 22. Behold the mechanical man Jesus derived from scripture

File: 51vNpaoB7ZL._SY442_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (55KB, 500x444px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x444px

>>1081940
That's small time

>>1082372
The Romans had no tradition of releasing a prisoner on Passover. That's an invention.

Second, the passage of Barabbas and Jesus is possibly a mistranslation from an original source in which the crowd asks for Jesus to be released, since Barabbas simply means 'son of the father' and is not a proper Jewish name, but more of a religiously-toned epithet. What most likely happened was a Greek scribe thinking Barabbas was a separate character from Jesus and creating this whole little addition to make it fit, when Barabbas was merely a name/title that Jesus was known by.

>>1082370
You can be a part of the system and an atheist. I don't see any contradiction here.

>>1082397
That would mean you have faith in God to be a part of the system.

>>1082395
>The Romans had no tradition of releasing a prisoner on Passover. That's an invention.
yeah, I was talking about how it purposefully parallels the Passover sacrifice, not that the tradition was real

>>1082330
Societal pressure.
Various benefits.

>>1082363
I think he means all the scientists that were born in heavily christian society where atheism was a minority and access to knowledge was often gated by religion.

>>1082399
The point is that you don't really need a faith to participate.

>>1082274
Do you have any physical evidence of an interpolator?

>>1082414
Are you saying lying is good anon? Because lying is an awful thing to do.

>>1082413
No I meant scientists who passionately professed their religion in a time when mild deism wasn't uncomon and punishable by death.

>>1082417
all scholars accept that at least parts of the passage are an interpolation. Josephus flat out says Jesus is the Messiah when Josephus was not a christian. there is no way Josephus would have said that. additionally there are several messianic figures that Josephus mentions and looks at in contempt so it is very unlikely that he would look on Jesus in a positive light

>>1082417
It is generally agreed that there is interpolation throughout the entire passage since Josephus writes in an overly praiseworthy fashion, going so far as to affirm the resurrection.

Then there's dispute as to whether or not the entire passage is interpolated or not.

>>1082430
I think my point still stands.

>>1082421
If it's so awful, why do Christcucks spend all their energies in engaging in it? Lying to themselves, lying to their congregations, lying to the gullible would-be converts, lying to everyone.

It's extremely obvious the Josephus "Jesus passage" is an interpolation. One needs only to look at the drastic change in tone and style. It suddenly becomes praiseworthy and exuberant, hailing Jesus as a "man so wise it was likely he was not even a man", when the entirety of the work before and after said passage is quite dispassionate and devoid of such emotive outbursts. It is not Josephus' style. Not to mention anachronisms/oddities like Josephus calling Jesus 'Christ' and 'Messiah'.

>>1082444
I'm not the faggot that lies to get into a thing just to learn.
>some atheiskike trying to defend his actions

>>1082443
>t is generally agreed that there is interpolation throughout the entire passage since Josephus writes in an overly praiseworthy fashion, going so far as to affirm the resurrection.
Do you have an eyewitness account of this interpolation?

>>1082444
don't conflate lying and simply saying something that isn't true. even if their religion isn't correct preaching it isn't neccisarily lying

>>1082465
you don't need an eyewitness account to show it is an interpolation. if the only copy of the Origin of the Species had randomly in the middle of the book "I am a faggot. Dicks are so tasty" don't you think we have good reason to think that that was an interpolation? again, Josephus wasn't a christian. there is no way he would call Jesus the Messiah. he doesn't even say some people claimed he was the Messiah, which would actually be plausible, he flat out says Jesus is the Messiah

>>1082302
Give me some time, lunch arrived a little while ago and I'm still eating.

>>1082534
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Ahh fuck it, I spent too much time on this.

All I can really tell here is that Josephus made reference to jesus and he said that he was called the christ.

Meh.

>>1082484
>you don't need an eyewitness account to show it is an interpolation
You should keep your faith based stories out of historical discussion.

> if the only copy of the Origin of the Species had randomly in the middle of the book "I am a faggot. Dicks are so tasty" don't you think we have good reason to think that that was an interpolation?
No, if there's no evidence of a mythical interpolator.

>again, Josephus wasn't a christian. there is no way he would call Jesus the Messiah.
Even if that's the case, it's not evidence an interpolator actually exists.

After I finish showing positive evidence for the historicity of the Gospels, I will address inconsistencies

There are several narratives of Christ: the primary ones are the pagan Christian narrative (Gnostic), the Pharisaic Christian narrative (Gospel of the Hebrews), and the Essenic Christian narrative (Orthodox). We'll be discussing the last narrative. The first thing that should be established is that the Essenes considered telling the truth to be a matter of extreme importance, morally, they saw it as better to die than to lie (contrast this with someone like Odysseus). Essenes put a much greater value on the truth than religious Jews who weren't Essenes. In evidence of this, let's look as Josephus, who says the Essenes forbade oaths, believing that it was indicting yourself if your regular yes or no were no considered trustworthy, but that if you still did need to take an oath, that was it, nothing whatsoever could come between you and that oath; an example is when you were initiated into the Essenes, you had to eat only with them; and if you did something grievous, people would get kicked out, but according to Josephus, they'd often have to live on grass because they said they'd only eat with other Essenes (this of course would eventually kill them, but they were frequently taken back in after many days of privation). This scrupulousness in regard to the truth as highly important, from a moral perspective, was maintained in early Essenic Christianity. In support of this, you only have to see how denying Christ, even on pain of death, was considered absolutely wrong--no other religion is that strict, as far as I know, where you cannot pretend and say you are not be a part of it if threatened with death.
cont

>>1082793
Another support for the immense concern for truth is that Christians had to actively confess their sins to each other--in fact, early Christian account record that confession had to be to the whole congregation. Truth was that important. Christ is recorded as saying when judgement day comes around, you will even have to account for every single idle word you uttered (Matthew 12:36), and I'm sure that would include lies. Finally, in support of this ethos, let us examine Paul's Epistles: he is immensely scrupulous about ensuring every word that is from him is attributed to him, and everything from Christ is attributed to Christ, he does not risk a confusion here, but offers disclaimers left and right, he is very careful about not twisting the truth. Now that we have discussed that, let's see who wrote the Gospels.
Off track: In Orthodox Christianity, monasticism bears much resemblance to the Essenic lifestyle, monks strive to live the purest form of Christianity they can; when Christianity became a very public religion, with its legalization, monks started to establish Christianity communities that still maintained the ascetic lifestyle, they were a Christian's Christian; that is why the monastic tradition is at the heart of the Orthodox faith, we select most of our bishops from monastics, our Liturgical traditions tend to follow the customs of monasteries; Mount Athos, rather than the Phanar, is in fact the Orthodox "Vatican" so to speak.
cont

>>1082799

Back on track: the earliest account of the authorship of the Gospels is the one given by Papias of Hierapolis, which accords with the Orthodox account. The most widely asserted alternative is the Q theory: the reason the Q theory is preferred, is because it is seen as impossible the Gospels were written before the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem; the reason this is seen as impossible, is because they predict it. Now before we address the Q theory, let me explain to you why the Gospel of John seems so different from the synoptic Gospels: it is because the synoptic Gospels are written for a wide audience, including Catechumens (Christians who are not fully initiated), but the Gospel of John was written exclusively for the initiated--all Catechumens would be dismissed right after the Peace of God (and still are in many Orthodox parishes), and right before the credal confession (the final development of this Creed would be the Nicene Creed, but the first fourteen verses of the Gospel of John might well have been a record of one of the earlier ones); the priest or deacon then shouted (and still does in the Orthodox tradition), "The doors!" because a guard was sent to keep a look out in case anyone was coming by and to give the alarm; this was such a serious issue because the credal confession made it explicitly clear that Christ is God;
cont

>>1082807
to consider him the Messiah who rose from the dead did not technically warrant death in ancient Jewish society, but saying he's God certainly would; now the Synoptic Gospels, being privy to Catechumens and even the general public, preferred to merely imply (albeit quite strongly at times) that Christ is God, whereas the Gospel of John is written without such caution, being intended exclusively for the initiated; and now you know why the Gospel of John seems so different from the Synoptic Gospels. This is also why John 6 gives significant elaboration on the Eucharist, which is the central Christian Mystery partaken of after the Catechumens are dismissed; he explains its reality, a reality that scandalizes even the Apostles.

cont

>>1082812


Now, let's address the Q theory: it holds that the synoptic Gospels cover a great deal of the same material, and therefore had a common source. First of all, it is actually a mark in their *favor* that they cover the same material, insofar as reliability goes, but here it is used against them; however, I will dispute the hypothesis based on this: the Gospels phrase many things differently, and it is altogether more plausible that they are just different people telling the same story, as opposed Sto one source being incorporated into three. Is there any good reason to believe the alternative to the Q Theory, the account by Papias? Yes, there is; first of all, the Four Gospels stand up to what they purport to be. The Gospel of John stands up to being by John, since it has personal details, most particularly Christ entrusting John with his mother; the alternative to believing this happened, would be to suggest the Gospel is not written by John, but by someone simply lying and claiming his name. One piece of evidence used to support this is John giving a different date for the Crucifixion, but in fact John doesn't: Leviticus 23:5 says Passover starts on the 14th day of the first month, which is the day the Passover Lamb is killed--Jewish time reckoning (as well as Orthodox Liturgical reckoning) gives the evening as the *start* of a day, meaning the Mystical Supper takes place on the fist day of Passover, and so does the Crucifixion, with Christ being entombed right before the end of the day. To cement the Gospels, however, the best source is the Gospel of Luke: it is written by the same author as Acts (in fact they were probably originally one work), who participated in Acts judging by the use of first-person plural later into the work.
cont

>>1082821
Now, why should we believe this author is who he indicates he is? Well, if the author were a fraud, why would attribute the work to Luke? He'd attribute it to someone who had a great deal of authority, yet he didn't. Secondly, the Gospel being Luke's coincides with its more detailed account that would come from women: Matthew and John are firsthand accounts, besides that they include what the disciples would have heard from those they knew, with the Gospel of Mark being entirely based on Mark's conversations with the Apostles about what they saw first-hand. Luke, on the other hand, would have to be an assembling of accounts, Luke goes and talks to different people about different things and weaves his Gospel out of them. So taking all this together, the Gospels are at least consistent with being authored by whom they are attributed to. What really puts the nail in coffin of the Q theory, is that it requires Mark to be the earliest Gospel other than Q, and to be the other common source used by Matthew and Luke, which is wrong: when Christ says it is not when goes in which defiles, but that which comes out, Mark 7:19 has the gloss explaining in saying this, Christ made all foods clean, something that was only universally accepted after the Council of Jerusalem; Matthew has no such gloss, indicating that it is the earliest Gospel, and predates the Council of Jerusalem. If Matthew were written after the Council of Jerusalem, and was using Mark as a source for this saying, surely it would have included this gloss.
cont

>>1082831
There is also another gloss, in Matthew 19:29 says those who leave mothers and brothers and wives and fathers and sisters and houses and fields for Christ's sake will receive a hundred times in the age to come; Mark 10: 29-30 says the same thing, but then adds a parenthetical gloss right after Christ says a hundredfold, saying "now" repeating what Christ just said, explaining "with persecutions", (as in you will lose these things in persecutions, maybe these things might even be doing the persecuting); then the parenthetical gloss ends, and Christ finishes "in age to come". Mark was clearly written after the persecution of Christians became intense, whereas Matthew was written before then. Rather than Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source, is make more sense to say Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources. Finally, Matthew was clearly written in Hebrew and translated (as Papias says), unlike the other Gospels, because it uses Hebrew syntax and tense; for instance, see the very Greek syntax of Mark 15:21: "And they compel passing a Simon [a passing Simon] of Cyrene, coming from country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, that [he might] carry the cross of his [Christ's]." This sort of syntax sounds natural in Greek (where inflection and declension almost completely determine grammatical relations), but in English or Hebrew, languages that rely heavily on syntax to express grammatical relations, it's chore to parse (and remember there was no punctuation, lowercase and uppercase, or even word spaces, in ancient times);
cont

>>1082836
Matthew 27:32, by contrast, reflects a Hebraic syntax: "Going forth and they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they compelled to carry the cross of his [Christ's]." Here is another example, Mark 1:12: "And immediately the spirit him drives into the wilderness." Compare the Hebraic Matthew 4:1: "Then he, Jesus, was led into wilderness by the spirit." In Mark, the indirect object is adjacent to the object, which is quite normal in Greek, but generally not feasible in Hebrew.

Now, let's see if it's likely they were: Saint James, the Brother of the Lord, was attested to as an historical figure in Paul's Epistles and Acts, he is the first bishop of Jerusalem, and presides over the Council of Jerusalem. Josephus (who also describes him as Christ's Brother) is the earliest source attesting to his martyrdom. So it's fairly reasonable to believe that Saint James the Just existed. Did he die for a purely fabricated brother? Unlikely. But do the Gospels match up with what James and Paul and the Apostles thought of Christ? Judging by the Epistles of Paul, Christ's death and Resurrection were always a belief of the Orthodox Church, that was core. so it is safe to say James believed that about his brother (who appeared to him, according to Paul).
cont

>>1082842
Could this have all been an Essene conspiracy, a lie that Christ ever existed (even though historians seem to have no difficulty believing Pythagoras and Buddha existed)? I really don't think so, because the assertion the Gospel of Matthew defends against is not that Christ didn't exist, but that his body was stolen from his tomb by his disciples (Matthew 28:15). Furthermore, if Christ were fabricated, it seems highly unlikely that the traditional witnesses of his empty tomb would be women, who were much more lowly regarded in Jewish society than in even Roman society, and it would bizarre to Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member of the council, would be ascribed the honor of providing Christ with a tomb, when those were just the sort of people Christians were pitted against--it would seem more logical to vilify all members of the council, the same council that would later put Saint James the Just to death. Taken altogether, the most likely hypothesis to explain all this is that Christ was a real person and was really put to death. But...was he really Resurrected?

cont

>>1082846
To explain Christ's Resurrection, three explanations are generally employed. 1. It was a myth about him that gained momentum with time. 2. It was fabricated outright. 3. It was a mass delusion.

1. This is pretty much disproved by the Resurrection by an integral belief in the earliest sources, among the core leaders of Christianity.
2. This is extremely unlikely, because Apostles had no material gain (in Paul's case, he explicitly refused any sort of material compensation, and did day labor to support himself as he ministered). They certainly had no sexual compensation. And they weren't looking to establish themselves as rulers of Israel, so they had no compensation power.
3. First off, know that we are not talking about one cult leader who is delusions and seeing things, we are talking about many Apostles (as well as hundreds of other people, according to Corinthians) who saw Christ and talked to him. This isn't just Paul or Peter being crazy and convincing other people to follow them. Second off, recall that all the Apostles were skeptical of reports Christ's Resurrection until they saw it with their own eyes (and Thomas was skeptical even then). These are very contrary to what you'd find with a cult build on a delusion, it's not built on man preaching a delusion, it's built on numerous people being convinced of something after witnessing it, and many of them highly skeptical.
cont

>>1082860
Thirdly, Paul was a man of great authority and probably status, who forfeited all that to become a Christian: he went from the highest status to the lowest, he even had Roman citizenship. He gave up everything and got stoned and whipped and so on. It stands to reason that his account of conversion was not fabricated, because it must have taken something pretty strong--but was he delusional?

It does not seem likely you could delude yourself out of your eyesight for three days, and then delude it back into focus when an Apostle places his hands on you (and the scales hindering his eyesight are material and visible). Fourthly, the tomb was actually empty (or else Matthew would be defending against the assertion that it wasn't, not that the body was stolen), which could only be explained either by a conspiracy on the part of the Apostles, or by Christ actually being Resurrected. But if it were a conspiracy on the part of the Apostles, surely *they* would be the ones to discover it, not women, since women were considered less than worthless as witnesses (Josephus says they are apt to lie out of hope for gain, or fear of punishment, and the Talmud says it is like asking a robber for testimony).

All this, taken together, while not proof positive of Christ, makes it quite reasonable to affirm him.

Now to address inconsistencies
cont

>>1082862
Q1: Why are there two conflicting patrilineal genealogies of Christ?

A1: "Father of/"Son of" doesn't necessarily mean direct son of someone, it can, and often does, mean someone's general descendant (Luke 18:38, John 8:39). Neither genealogy is comprehensive, there are several gaps (not like the gaps you only notice when you think about it, but gaps would which would be quite evident to both writers) in both, so within both genealogies the "father of"/"son of" is used in a general sense in several instances, and therefore they are not contradictory, but complementary. I'm sure you're a bit underwhelmed by this explanation, especially since there are so many elaborate explanations in the West (one genealogy is Mary's; Joseph was adopted and one is his adoptive father and one is his biological; one is the Joseph's legal father, one is his levirate father; etc.), but it's the teaching of the Church and always has been.

Q1a: How can Christ be of the seed of David (John 7:42) if Joseph isn't his real father?

A1a: In Hebrew society, the legal progeny of someone was considered his seed, regardless of biological issuance (Genesis 38:9). Christ is the Son of God in the sense of being begotten of the God the Father before all ages, rather than referring to his conception by the Holy Spirit.

Q2: Why are there different accounts of Christ's last words?

A2: The last thing most of the witnesses hear is Christ's cry of agony (Mark 15:37, Matthew 27:50); Luke elaborates on what Christ was saying in that cry (Luke 23:47), which may not have been have been intelligible to many witnesses. Everything he said afterward was probably in the faintest of whispers, which is why only John reports it, since John was close enough to hear (John 19:26).
cont

>>1082864


Q3: Luke places Christ's birth as during the Census of Quirinius, which was in 6 AD whereas other Gospels place it during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC.

A3: Quirinius most likely had a prior tenure as governor of Syria, and conducted a census then. Josephus (the source for the 6 AD census) used written sources in many instances, and was often *extremely* sloppy with them, so sloppy in fact he gives numerous accounts drawn exclusively from the Hebrew Bible which blatantly contradict the Hebrew Bible; for instance, he says David built the Temple of Jerusalem (Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 13, paragraph 2), even though the Hebrew Bible says Solomon did (David being forbidden due to the blood on his hands), and he does this numerous times, on basic things, sometimes even contradicting himself, AND he's a self-described Pharisee--compared to Josephus, the Gospels are in fact extremely scrupulous, especially in their being by *multiple authors*. Now in Josephus's account of the 6 AD census, he made a mistake which indicates an earlier census: he lists Joazar ben Boethus as high priest during the 6 AD census, whereas Joshua ben Sie, or Annas ben Seth, was high priest then, Joazar ben Boethus having been deposed in 4 BC; we know Josephus was not just referring to him as high priest emeritus, since he talks about him being deposed in the same narrative. Now this is critical, because Joazar ben Boethus is, according to Josephus, the high priest who placates the Jews enough for the census to be held...this makes it clear there was a census during his tenure with Herod the Great. Some have argued that he was reinstated and his involved with the census was in 6 AD, and then deposed of again, but this is tenuous, since he was deposed of by Herod Archelaus for sedition (according to Josephus), that's not a charge you'd normally be reinstated after.
cont

>>1082867
The other possibility would be that Quirinius reinstated him with his new rule, and then quickly fired him, but this is also tenuous: does it seem likely Quirinius would depose of a high priest who was facilitating the census, when people were on the verge of rebelling (indeed, a few did, led by Judas of Galilee, who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles--a work written by Luke and originally part of the same writing as his Gospels--and by Josephus)? That's something you would reward, not punish. Furthermore, if Quirinius was choosing a new high priest to replace the one before his rule, he would do so immediately, not wait until after the census. The most likely scenario is that Quirinius did replace the high priest immediately, but the high priest was Joshua ben Sie, not Joazar, and Quirinius replaced him directly with Annas ben Seth, and Josephus got confused with the census of Quirinius's earlier reign, probably by reading a written source about the earlier census, and associating the account with the 6 AD census (judging from his myriad of mistakes in reference to Scripture, he didn't write with his written sources handy, he recalled what he could in memory of reading them).

Q4: Concerning Matthew 5:17, and Christians not following the Law of Moses.

A4: See the Aramaic word for "fulfill", סוּף (suph): http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5487.htm It could be used to describe finishing a book or a task. By contrast, the Aramaic term for "abolish" means to erase.

Q5: Concerning Christ saying the Kingdom of Heaven would occur before the end of the end of "this generation".

A5: Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 3, Paragraph 15. Matthew 24:31, Matthew 24:31, Matthew 12:28 kingdom = "reign" of heaven like a grain of mustard seed, Israel vs. Church. Camel through eye of a needle, kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God synonymous.

Aaaand, that's all for now, folks

>>1082864
Wasn't Mary a decadent of David's family line? Or did the bible only mention Joseph?

>>1082892
Joseph is related to David.

>>1082895
Oh ok, good read where did you learn all this?

So is this the reddit board?

>>1082903
/pol/.

File: thanks4posting.jpg (64KB, 435x616px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 435x616px

>>1082918
>/pol/
I guess I'll give the board a chance

>>1082928
It's all about going onto the Christian boards before dirty pagans feel the need to shitpost in the thread.

>>1081940
>""""proof""""

>>1082892
Several Church Fathers said Mary is a descendant of David, being of the same tribe as Joseph.

>>1082967
I swear on my dead great-grandmother that it was Joseph that was related to David

Are there any debates on the historicity of Jesus up on youtube worth watching?

>>1082776
Suck a little boy's dick, christfag.

>>1083585
>youtube

>>1082207
What historians?
Christian theological types?

Please cite historians who are not propagandists for some religion.

>>1082242
Cite evidence, please.

Once again, I am an athiest,.
I know many other athiests, and not a single one likes islam.

Please give examples.

File: 1461144873797.jpg (10KB, 250x222px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x222px

>>1083650
Good going on stereotypes you edgy atheist. Go tip your fedora elsewhere.

>>1083672
Erhman?

Just because a source is bias does not mean historians dont use it. You just have to read it critically.

Carrier's thesis is not the main stream position

>>1083007
That's pretty much what's in the bible.
Twice.
Both times the lineage is different.

But muh virgin birth so people keep saying it's Mary's lineage.

>>1082252
Dawkins hates islam more than christianity you dumb fuck.

>>1083585
anyone?

>>1088279
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-AN7U4OLg

>>1088286
>>1088279
This is the author of OP's book by the way

>>1081940
>THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
>but what about these b..
>THOSE DONT COUNT!
Talk about scholarship

>>1088317
I mean, he does go into pretty good detail as to why he thinks the evidence people propose isnt actually good evidence, its not just mindless denial

>>1082069
you are aware that this can be said for the majority of early age figures retard?

File: We came for your girl Apu.jpg (94KB, 353x500px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 353x500px

>>1082348
Would you call Hindus illogical then?

>what is evidence
>inb4 sources are 50 years after Jesus lived

>what is the bible
>inb4 it's a religious book so it doesn't count

>what about the hundreds of people who talked about him

>T-They were all ly-ying...

Daily reminder that Atheism is a mental illness.

>>1082348
Monotheism is fucking dreadful, worst mistake of the human species.

>>1081940
>>The supernatural events of outlined in the Bible are unsubstantiated, cannot be independently verified and are therefore highly likely to never have happened in the first place.
True, obviously.

>>Therefore Jesus didn't exist.
Yeah no, this doesn't follow. There's nothing inherently unbelievable about the historical jesus in and of himself.

>>Religious/Political Dissident pisses off the authorities and is executed. After his death his followers start spreading a rumor that he didn't die/was resurrected from death etc.

Nothing about this that is unbelievable exactly.

>>1082348
You don't know jackshit about euro polytheists if you think they rubbed each other with their own shit or ate babies to make their crops grow.

>>1082348
>Even a rational atheist understands the concept of a single, all encompassing God is logical.

How do you reason this?

The most logical thing would be not Gods at all but divine forces. For instance if physics is governed by gravity, strong nuclear energy, weak nuclear energy, etc. Than the meta physics should be governed by things like Karma, the Flux, the Tao.

Just as there are also many material life forms (ie billions of humans) there should also be many spirtual life forms, millions of Gods.

I have never once heard a good defense of a reason why there should be multiple Gods that isn't begging the question.

>>1088987
>If I inb4 a legitimate response, they won't be able to use against me so I win

>>1088987
>what about the hundreds of people who talked about him
citation please. gospels aren't eyewitnesses sources

>>1089151
not him but to my knowledge there are zero eyewittness sources. In fact Jesus has very few sources at all.

There's two pagan authors that mention him...not even as a historical person but as just saying some people think he is a God. They do not mention a single detail about him other than his first name and the name of his brother.

Gospels are not eyewittnesses....

Yeah that's it. That's all the sources we have for him and the best shit we have is 50+year old hearsay and a namedrop.

>>1089134
If there was more than one capital G God, they would be an entity with identical properties, existing in the same relation to space and time. There would functionally be no difference between multiple Gods and a God.

>>1089167
> they would be an entity with identical properties, existing in the same relation to space and time


Are you just pulling these ideas out of your ass?

There is no reason that you cannot have two Gods with different properties
>inb4 all Gods must confirm to the definition of God that I axiomatically assert which rules out all possibilities other than my own personal God.

You haven't even fucking addressed the problem of forces such as Flux, Tao, and Karma handling all the tasks a God would normally do.

>>1082069
>who is tacitus

>>1082179
No...
The weren't Atheists, they were Jews...
Remember Einstein?

>>1089151
John was a follower of Jesus and Paul saw him when he still wan't a christian

File: 1460867889111.jpg (47KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x426px

>>1081940
Well, you certainly convinced me....

time to stop going to church.

>>1082069
Other than outside sources, why doesn't the bible count?

>>1082253
>Who burned Alexandera?
Not Muslims. Romans.

>>1081940
What about the Gospels of Mary, Thomas & Judas; &
the writings of Clement...
- at least Freud's argument for a "composite Moses" was well reasoned.

>>1081957
Because most atheists grew up in Christian households. It's a childish rebellion thing.

>>1081940
Christians will just ignore this. If they had more power they would burn the book and the author ISIS style.

Christianity is a shitskin religion.

>>1082831
>Christ made all foods clean, something that was only universally accepted after the Council of Jerusalem; Matthew has no such gloss, indicating that it is the earliest Gospel

Our only source for the Council ruling is the book of Acts.

Matthew is a Judaizing work. Matthew is thematically concerned with saying Jewish law is still in effect and that Jesus came only for Jews, not Gentiles. Removing a line like this is thematically right in line with - and expected by - Matthew's polemic elsewhere.

>>1082242
chricucks are really weird

>create a strawman
>repeat it for years and years
>they now consider it the truth

>>1090484
>being stuck in a meme spiral

>>1082242
I can say with total confidence that just about every atheist I know would take Christianity over Islam any day of the week.

The only atheists who like Islam are SJWs because muh oppression

>>1082862
We know absolutely nothing about Paul's conversion or circumstances outside the Book of Acts (and his story doesn't even add up in that account - the Jews had absolutely no authority to arrest Christians in Damascus, and as a Pharisee Paul would want nothing to do with the High Priest, a Sadducee). Which was written in the 80s at the earliest, and possibly even the second century AD

The safest bet is that there was some sort of Jewish guy going around that the story of Jesus had his life based on.

There are no real eyewitness to what happened (no the Gospels are not eyewitness reports). The best we have is highly theologically and politically motivated texts written 50+ years after the event based on an oral tradition which would have certainly become inaccurate in just the first year or two alone (seeing as how when mistakes, errors, or oughtright fabrications were added to the tradition there would no way to differenitiate from the "truth") in the form of the Gospels.


Pagan authors are almost no help. All they confirm is that there was some man with a first name of Jesus who was worshipped, they also say he had a brother named James.

Figuring out what parts of the gopsels...if anything...recorded something true is a nightmare. IMO John is too old to be considered accurate, Luke and Mathew are copypaste jobs. The 2 sources we should relay on Mark (oldest Gospel, which all the others borrow from) and Thomas (independently made, potentially the oldest source). If something is in both Thomas and Mathew it's the safest bet you have.

>>1091003
Scholars agree that Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist did happen. It's unlikely that Christians would make that story up as if someone baptises you it implies they are 'above' you spiritually.

John the Baptist was an apocalypticist who thought the end was nigh. We know that the earliest Christian communities also thought the end was nigh.

The beginning and the end are the keys to the middle. It's therefore a safe bet that Jesus was indeed an apocalyptic preacher

>>1090014
Because it is self-verifying. It makes the claim and verifies itself. It's like me writing a book about a magical man and creating a narrative based around him. My book can't count as evidence because it itself makes the claim that the man exists.

>>1091034
There were many apocalyptic preachers however only one made an impression that survived for very long. Because of this it would be incorrect to think Jesusis just a carbon copy of John. I reject Erman's idea that Jesus was just another apocalyptic preacher although he may have started out as one early in his career. Jesus would have to have something unique to succeed while other apocalyptic preachers fail.

One thing to look at is the Ebionetes, early Christians supposedly founded by James. This would be a good source of information, Ebionetes were all Jews as opposed to the Gentile Gospel writers, they also were governed by a man who would have known Jesus very well. One thing about them is they did not beleive in an after-life which would be consistent with early Judaism. In other words someone that personally knew Jesus said the religion wasn't about the after-life.

There is some theory that Jesus's "coming kingdom" was supposed to be understood as a state of mind, sort of like the Buddhist Nirvana. The good times would come when people were at peace with them-self and practicing his virtues of "turning the other cheek" and distancing them-self from wealth.

>Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

>When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This is one of the earliest lines in Thoma's Gospel which is dated as late as the year 40 and as late as early as 140. It's generally accepted the early lines are the oldest.

>>1083680
he is probably one of those conservatives who thinks secularism is the same as atheism. many american seculars DO hate christianity more because it is actually relevant to their lives unlike islam

>>1091067
>early Christians supposedly founded by James
Yes, supposedly. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that they can claim direct succession from him.

What I find more interesting is the fact that the Jerusalem Church seemed fairly intent on keeping the Law and didn't bother with the Gentiles, and the mental gymnastics Paul had to perform to explain why Gentiles were welcome didn't have to adhere to the Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Galilaeans

This is the only argument against Christianity you need.