03-03-2018, 09:43 PM
|
#3451
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
Quote:
Simon Moon wrote
Why would you believe anything based on faith?
Is there anything that someone could not believe on faith?
So, I see 2.2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, and people with other religions, all using faith to get to their religious beliefs. And here I am, without a method to evaluate whos, if any, religious beliefs are true. How should I tell the difference between all these beliefs, and gullibility?
|
The original belief in Jesus's resurrection was not based on faith, but rather observation - which was recorded. For us in modern times, the "faith" we require is only that the original recordings are genuine, were written by their authors in "good faith" (i.e. honestly, excuse the pun), and that the interpretation of the author's (that a resurrection actually occurred) was a correct one.
What makes the Christine story more plausible and likely true vs. the other religions, is that mainstream new testament biblical scholarship accepts the resurrection narrative, that at least a series of events occurred which made many many people of the day really believe a resurrection took place.
Quote:
Simon Moon wrote
If an argument is fallacious, it cannot be "well reasoned". Sorry, but that statement may be the most ignorant thing I've seen you say. The definition of well reasoned argument, is an argument that is logically valid and sound.
|
I disagree.
An argument that is logically valid and sound is not really an argument, it is a proof.
A true argument has strengths and weaknesses, it by definition is an assertion to be argued.
Eg. I argue 1 plus 1 is two. Not an argument, self evident proof.
Eg. I argue Trump is a great President. Yes an argument, can be debated, not a certainty.
So any asserted argument, which is not a logical proof, is technically "fallacious", in that there is bound to be at least one weakness which makes the assertion untrue.
God exists - debatable , bring evidence.
God does not exist - debatable, bring evidence
Both statements are fallacious, but one must be true (dichotomy). So a fallacious argument is not necessarily false.
I recommend you take a course on critical thinking, crack a book and when your well studied maybe we can try again.
|
|
|
03-03-2018, 10:34 PM
|
#3452
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,362
|
Quote:
hertz vanrental wrote
christards utter their bollocks, like the possessed evil twats that they are, right up to the point where they are asked for proof. Then they threaten you with the wrath of their god. When that doesn't work, the poor, sad basterds run for the hills.
Piss pots.
|
Hertzy,
Don't flatter yourself. Your eternal destination is yours and yours alone. I don't give a rat's ass Hertzy.
JJ
|
|
|
03-03-2018, 10:36 PM
|
#3453
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,362
|
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
You continue to be wrong on just about everything ....
|
Wait till your standing ready to be thrown into hell and find out your get our of jail free card is void.
Won't be so funny then, Smellly. It's your fucking problem and not mine.
JJ
|
|
|
03-03-2018, 10:39 PM
|
#3454
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,362
|
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
Nope, Hertz will sizzle sizzle sizzle in a pit of fire. He will scream and yell and yearn for a drop of water - and be tormented forever and ever and ever and ever and ever....
God isn't a chump, Hertzy you mock the Lord, you will get the wrath. The Lord has feelings to you know.. show respect or else (sizzle sizzle sizzle).
But I also think Hertzy will receive hell on earth. He will find pain and despair and he will always be without hope. He will end up a drunk or on drugs - that will be his only palliation.
|
Without a doubt, Andrew. He is in hell on Earth. No one that was truly an atheist would try to constantly reinfoce himself by constantly mocking God.
It's moronic, to mock a God you don't even frickin' believe in. Go figure.
JJ
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 02:39 AM
|
#3455
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,734
|
Quote:
JerryJohn wrote
Without a doubt, Andrew. He is in hell on Earth. No one that was truly an atheist would try to constantly reinfoce himself by constantly mocking God.
It's moronic, to mock a God you don't even frickin' believe in. Go figure.
JJ
|
Never mind jerrypong
You'll soon be in your crutch and will be refilled with the vomit and shit, you will need to get through the coming week, provided by the pillock in the pulpit.
Do I sound like a fuckin' people person?
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 05:19 AM
|
#3456
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,734
|
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
The original belief in Jesus's resurrection was not based on faith, but rather observation - which was recorded. For us in modern times, the "faith" we require is only that the original recordings are genuine, were written by their authors in "good faith" (i.e. honestly, excuse the pun), and that the interpretation of the author's (that a resurrection actually occurred) was a correct one.
What makes the Christine story more plausible and likely true vs. the other religions, is that mainstream new testament biblical scholarship accepts the resurrection narrative, that at least a series of events occurred which made many many people of the day really believe a resurrection took place.
I disagree.
An argument that is logically valid and sound is not really an argument, it is a proof.
A true argument has strengths and weaknesses, it by definition is an assertion to be argued.
Eg. I argue 1 plus 1 is two. Not an argument, self evident proof.
Eg. I argue Trump is a great President. Yes an argument, can be debated, not a certainty.
So any asserted argument, which is not a logical proof, is technically "fallacious", in that there is bound to be at least one weakness which makes the assertion untrue.
God exists - debatable , bring evidence.
God does not exist - debatable, bring evidence
Both statements are fallacious, but one must be true (dichotomy). So a fallacious argument is not necessarily false.
I recommend you take a course on critical thinking, crack a book and when your well studied maybe we can try again.
|
Weirdo, illiterate android IQ 66
I recommend you take a course on ancient history.
People accepted/accept the supposed resurrection narrative, not because it was true and was supported by evidence, but because it was, and in some quarters, still is, considered socially unacceptable to say otherwise. In such quarters, people have been brain-washed from birth to believe this nonsense.
christards believe that the narrative is true and is supported by evidence. This is bollocks.
Outside of the babble, the first mention of zombie boy is in the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, the Romano-Jewish historian. In the 20 volume book, he mentions zombie boy only twice. So, the supposed son of de lard only merits two mentions in a 20 volume book, eh? The first, which is only a single paragraph which, even christard scholars accept, is a forgery, probably created by 4th century christards. One must, at this point, question why 4th century chistards would need to forge documents to create a narrative that implied the existence of zombie boy. In the second mention of zombie boy, it is unclear which jebus Josephus is talking about because he mentions five different jebus in his book. The book, by the way, isn't written until 93/94 AD. That's over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of zombie boy. This is important because, back in the day, life expectancy was only 47 years. Given this delay, Josephus is unable to quote eye witnesses to the supposed crucifixion/resurrection because they would be dead.
The next account of zombie boy outside of the babble occurs courtesy of one Tacitus. He writes in 113 AD that there was a darkening and that the Earth moved when zombie boy was supposedly crucified. He quotes no supporting evidence and does not quote any eye witnesses. He does, however, imply that his account was based on earlier accounts. Sadly, they no longer exist, if they ever did in the first place. In addition, we know that the earth 'did not move', at the supposed crucifixion, because earth quakes in the area were recorded by the Romans and no such event was recorded for a number of years either side of the supposed crucifixion.
For the above reasons, Josphus and Tacitus cannot be considered as evidence to support the crucifixion of zombie boy.
The only other accounts of the supposed crucifixion were recorded in the canonical gospels. However, the first, Mark, wasn't written until 70 AD and the last, John, not written until the beginning of the 2nd century AD. These cannot be considered evidence because:
a) They are subject of circular proof
b) Their authorship is unknown.
c) Don't quote their sources.
d) Have been translated and re-translated and re-worded on several occasions. Most of the original source material has been lost. Therefore, what the gospels originally stated is unknown.
d) Can only be considered secondary evidence, at best.
The above can hardly be considered as a proof of anything, let alone a religion.
The Romans were great documentalists and yet, in spite of your zombie boy supposedly pulling crowds of 5,000, curing all manner of ills such as blindness and leprosy, walking on water and turning water into wine, write precisely nothing about zombie boy during his supposed lifetime. Strange, no?
I recommend that before you believe in all of this jebus and god bollocks, you get a course in the history of your own religion, you fuckin' illiterate moron.
Do I sound like a fuckin' people person?
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 10:25 AM
|
#3457
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
Quote:
hertz vanrental wrote
Weirdo, illiterate android IQ 66
I recommend you take a course on ancient history.
People accepted/accept the supposed resurrection narrative, not because it was true and was supported by evidence, but because it was, and in some quarters, still is, considered socially unacceptable to say otherwise. In such quarters, people have been brain-washed from birth to believe this nonsense.
christards believe that the narrative is true and is supported by evidence. This is bollocks.
Outside of the babble, the first mention of zombie boy is in the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, the Romano-Jewish historian. In the 20 volume book, he mentions zombie boy only twice. So, the supposed son of de lard only merits two mentions in a 20 volume book, eh? The first, which is only a single paragraph which, even christard scholars accept, is a forgery, probably created by 4th century christards. One must, at this point, question why 4th century chistards would need to forge documents to create a narrative that implied the existence of zombie boy. In the second mention of zombie boy, it is unclear which jebus Josephus is talking about because he mentions five different jebus in his book. The book, by the way, isn't written until 93/94 AD. That's over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of zombie boy. This is important because, back in the day, life expectancy was only 47 years. Given this delay, Josephus is unable to quote eye witnesses to the supposed crucifixion/resurrection because they would be dead.
The next account of zombie boy outside of the babble occurs courtesy of one Tacitus. He writes in 113 AD that there was a darkening and that the Earth moved when zombie boy was supposedly crucified. He quotes no supporting evidence and does not quote any eye witnesses. He does, however, imply that his account was based on earlier accounts. Sadly, they no longer exist, if they ever did in the first place. In addition, we know that the earth 'did not move', at the supposed crucifixion, because earth quakes in the area were recorded by the Romans and no such event was recorded for a number of years either side of the supposed crucifixion.
For the above reasons, Josphus and Tacitus cannot be considered as evidence to support the crucifixion of zombie boy.
The only other accounts of the supposed crucifixion were recorded in the canonical gospels. However, the first, Mark, wasn't written until 70 AD and the last, John, not written until the beginning of the 2nd century AD. These cannot be considered evidence because:
a) They are subject of circular proof
b) Their authorship is unknown.
c) Don't quote their sources.
d) Have been translated and re-translated and re-worded on several occasions. Most of the original source material has been lost. Therefore, what the gospels originally stated is unknown.
d) Can only be considered secondary evidence, at best.
The above can hardly be considered as a proof of anything, let alone a religion.
The Romans were great documentalists and yet, in spite of your zombie boy supposedly pulling crowds of 5,000, curing all manner of ills such as blindness and leprosy, walking on water and turning water into wine, write precisely nothing about zombie boy during his supposed lifetime. Strange, no?
I recommend that before you believe in all of this jebus and god bollocks, you get a course in the history of your own religion, you fuckin' illiterate moron.
|
Thank you for the history lesson Hertz. How the fuck do you have such a good knowledge of this stuff? You must have gone to school for it.. where you a student of Bart Erhman???
A few things I disagree with.
Firstly, I find it odd how atheists make a big deal that there are few "extra biblical" sources about Jesus. The gospels, and Acts, and letters of Paul - and all the zillions of copies made of these important early sources, were not when written a single work called the Bible. The Bible is just a collection of works. If we had some of the documents Rome undoubtedly must have wrote about Jesus (which must have been lost obviously) maybe they would have been put in the Bible as well - then you would be arguing that there were no African, Asian or North American sources beyond the "babble". etc. LOL.
Secondly your statement that people allegedly supported the resurrection narrative because it was politically correct to do so is just bull shit pulled out of your ass. This is just speculation. Mainstream new testament scholars who look at the evidence with scepticism agree that the people of Jesus's time believe he was resurrected. I think your mentor Bart Erhman would agree that the early Jews who were witnesses or heard about the events from credible sources (by oral tradition) "believed".
I do agree that the gospels are "secondary evidence" about the events which at least appeared to be a valid ressurection. Thank you for admitting there is evidence!!! - dishonest cock suckers like Davin lie about that.
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 11:11 AM
|
#3458
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,395
|
Quote:
JerryJohn wrote
Wait till your standing ready to be thrown into hell and find out your get our of jail free card is void.
Won't be so funny then, Smellly. It's your fucking problem and not mine.
JJ
|
Tell us about all the "end of the world" threats your fellow nutbars have made!
Stick your childish threats you know where. Make you feel powerful?
Use foolproof airtight logic on a mind that's closed and you're dead. - William J. Reilly, Opening Closed Minds
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 11:29 AM
|
#3459
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
IQ 66 claims there were undoubtedly Roman documents about the walking dead which were obviously lost. Then accuses another poster of speculation.
You couldn't mark this one's neck with a blow-lamp!
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 11:37 AM
|
#3460
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,734
|
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
Thank you for the history lesson Hertz. How the fuck do you have such a good knowledge of this stuff? You must have gone to school for it.. where you a student of Bart Erhman???
A few things I disagree with.
Firstly, I find it odd how atheists make a big deal that there are few "extra biblical" sources about Jesus. The gospels, and Acts, and letters of Paul - and all the zillions of copies made of these important early sources, were not when written a single work called the Bible. The Bible is just a collection of works. If we had some of the documents Rome undoubtedly must have wrote about Jesus (which must have been lost obviously) maybe they would have been put in the Bible as well - then you would be arguing that there were no African, Asian or North American sources beyond the "babble". etc. LOL.
Secondly your statement that people allegedly supported the resurrection narrative because it was politically correct to do so is just bull shit pulled out of your ass. This is just speculation. Mainstream new testament scholars who look at the evidence with scepticism agree that the people of Jesus's time believe he was resurrected. I think your mentor Bart Erhman would agree that the early Jews who were witnesses or heard about the events from credible sources (by oral tradition) "believed".
I do agree that the gospels are "secondary evidence" about the events which at least appeared to be a valid ressurection. Thank you for admitting there is evidence!!! - dishonest cock suckers like Davin lie about that.
|
weirdo, illiterate android IQ 66
1. It's not odd that there few external biblical references to zombie boy. Given what he's supposed to have done (raised people from the dead, turned water into wine, cured the blind and the deaf, preached to 5,000+ people and walked on water), it is absolutely staggering that the Romans didn't write about the twat. The only logical reason for this is that he never did any of these things because he was make-believe.
You claim that Romans wrote about zombie boy - but ALL of the documents were lost. Interesting theory . So how come we have lots of detailed accounts of trials, lots of household accounts and even lots of recipes from the time that zombie boy supposedly existed but not one single account of zombie boy? How likely is this?
Some 40 years after the supposed crucifixion, the first of the gospels was written. It was copied, translated, amended, re-written, re-translated, re-amended, re-written etc. many times. We even have a number of the early versions. Yet, not one word of zombie boy outside of the babble. Yet, we don't find one word from the Romans about zombie. How likely is this, if he really existed?
For the record, people really didn't believe in the resurrection until the 4th century. It was also at that time that the nativity was invented too.
Also, for the record, mainstream scholars are now beginning to doubt that zombie boy even existed. Their number is beginning to swell.
Yes, let's talk about Paul by all means. He wrote 13 Epistles. All but 6 are thought to be 4th century forgeries created by christards of the time. Even christard scholars are of this opinion.
In the Epistles that are thought to be genuine, Paul appears not to know that zombie was real. He knows nothing of zombie boy's supposed parents nor of his supposed time on Earth. In fact, from reading the 6 Epistles which are thought to be genuine, one could easily conclude that Paul knew that zombie boy wasn't real. You seriously need to do your homework.
Let's also talk about all of these early christard documents. FACT: 90% are known to be forgeries - most of which were thought to have been created by the lying little christards of the 4th century. Now, if zombie boy was real, why was it necessary to create all these forgeries?
Why does the 4th century keep cropping up?
Nicene christardology became the official religion of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's sole authorized religion.
Also, we can't view any document in isolation. It has to be viewed in proper context.
The babble says that a ghost raped a woman who had a baby who was crucified and came back to life. The babble also say that the whole of humanity was descended from adam and eve, who had 3 sons (go figure). In that sort of context, any document regarding any element of christardology has to be viewed with extreme suspicion, to say the very least.
The fact that the Romans wrote not one word about zombie boy comes as no surprise - especially if he never existed.
Chew on that fuck face.
Do I sound like a fuckin' people person?
Last edited by hertz vanrental; 03-04-2018 at 11:57 AM.
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 12:20 PM
|
#3461
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,734
|
A word of warning, christards
jerrypong, weirdo, illiterate android IQ 66
I once wrote that if one wanted to know about christardology and the babble, ask an atheist. Unlike a typical christard, an Atheist has probably read the babble.
I was not joking.
You two christards will never win an argument with any Atheist worth his salt. They will, in all probability, know far more about christardology than you will, especially when it comes to the history of christardology, for it is there where the christard achilles heel lies. It is there where christard vulnerability is greatest. If you do not understand this, you understand nothing about your religion. In my experience, the typical christard knows jack shit.
You two christards, android IQ 66 especially, are particularly weak when it comes to the history of your religion.
A word of warning. If you go searching, the probability is high that you will begin to doubt your religion and, from there, there is no turning back. It's just like Santa Clause, once when your parents tell you there is no Santa Clause, that's it.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Do I sound like a fuckin' people person?
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 12:29 PM
|
#3462
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
I wonder if the Resident Retards could concentrate for long enough to read something like this?
Quote:
A rational, secular, historical perspective on the history of Christianity and its scripture
|
.... nope, not a fucking chance! ....
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 12:38 PM
|
#3463
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,362
|
Quote:
hertz vanrental wrote
Weirdo, illiterate android IQ 66
I recommend you take a course on ancient history.
People accepted/accept the supposed resurrection narrative, not because it was true and was supported by evidence, but because it was, and in some quarters, still is, considered socially unacceptable to say otherwise. In such quarters, people have been brain-washed from birth to believe this nonsense.
christards believe that the narrative is true and is supported by evidence. This is bollocks.
Outside of the babble, the first mention of zombie boy is in the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, the Romano-Jewish historian. In the 20 volume book, he mentions zombie boy only twice. So, the supposed son of de lard only merits two mentions in a 20 volume book, eh? The first, which is only a single paragraph which, even christard scholars accept, is a forgery, probably created by 4th century christards. One must, at this point, question why 4th century chistards would need to forge documents to create a narrative that implied the existence of zombie boy. In the second mention of zombie boy, it is unclear which jebus Josephus is talking about because he mentions five different jebus in his book. The book, by the way, isn't written until 93/94 AD. That's over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of zombie boy. This is important because, back in the day, life expectancy was only 47 years. Given this delay, Josephus is unable to quote eye witnesses to the supposed crucifixion/resurrection because they would be dead.
The next account of zombie boy outside of the babble occurs courtesy of one Tacitus. He writes in 113 AD that there was a darkening and that the Earth moved when zombie boy was supposedly crucified. He quotes no supporting evidence and does not quote any eye witnesses. He does, however, imply that his account was based on earlier accounts. Sadly, they no longer exist, if they ever did in the first place. In addition, we know that the earth 'did not move', at the supposed crucifixion, because earth quakes in the area were recorded by the Romans and no such event was recorded for a number of years either side of the supposed crucifixion.
For the above reasons, Josphus and Tacitus cannot be considered as evidence to support the crucifixion of zombie boy.
The only other accounts of the supposed crucifixion were recorded in the canonical gospels. However, the first, Mark, wasn't written until 70 AD and the last, John, not written until the beginning of the 2nd century AD. These cannot be considered evidence because:
a) They are subject of circular proof
b) Their authorship is unknown.
c) Don't quote their sources.
d) Have been translated and re-translated and re-worded on several occasions. Most of the original source material has been lost. Therefore, what the gospels originally stated is unknown.
d) Can only be considered secondary evidence, at best.
The above can hardly be considered as a proof of anything, let alone a religion.
The Romans were great documentalists and yet, in spite of your zombie boy supposedly pulling crowds of 5,000, curing all manner of ills such as blindness and leprosy, walking on water and turning water into wine, write precisely nothing about zombie boy during his supposed lifetime. Strange, no?
I recommend that before you believe in all of this jebus and god bollocks, you get a course in the history of your own religion, you fuckin' illiterate moron.
|
I recommend that before your last breaths you repent of your mocking of God, and God knows what filthy sins are on your list of sins.
Otherwise, the last account of you will be being thrown down to hell and it will be too late then.
Just a thought and be forewarned. The best thing is you will be in heaven with Andrew and I instead of rotting away in some grave with maggots crawling all over you or in some urn in noone's home, or ashes anywhere for I really think you are a "MAJOR" loner. As you yourself state "do I look like a people person." Coloquially speaking "look like" the answer is Hell No.
Praying for your repentance,
JJ
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 12:45 PM
|
#3464
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,362
|
Quote:
hertz vanrental wrote
Weirdo, illiterate android IQ 66
I recommend you take a course on ancient history.
People accepted/accept the supposed resurrection narrative, not because it was true and was supported by evidence, but because it was, and in some quarters, still is, considered socially unacceptable to say otherwise. In such quarters, people have been brain-washed from birth to believe this nonsense.
christards believe that the narrative is true and is supported by evidence. This is bollocks.
Outside of the babble, the first mention of zombie boy is in the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, the Romano-Jewish historian. In the 20 volume book, he mentions zombie boy only twice. So, the supposed son of de lard only merits two mentions in a 20 volume book, eh? The first, which is only a single paragraph which, even christard scholars accept, is a forgery, probably created by 4th century christards. One must, at this point, question why 4th century chistards would need to forge documents to create a narrative that implied the existence of zombie boy. In the second mention of zombie boy, it is unclear which jebus Josephus is talking about because he mentions five different jebus in his book. The book, by the way, isn't written until 93/94 AD. That's over 60 years after the supposed crucifixion of zombie boy. This is important because, back in the day, life expectancy was only 47 years. Given this delay, Josephus is unable to quote eye witnesses to the supposed crucifixion/resurrection because they would be dead.
The next account of zombie boy outside of the babble occurs courtesy of one Tacitus. He writes in 113 AD that there was a darkening and that the Earth moved when zombie boy was supposedly crucified. He quotes no supporting evidence and does not quote any eye witnesses. He does, however, imply that his account was based on earlier accounts. Sadly, they no longer exist, if they ever did in the first place. In addition, we know that the earth 'did not move', at the supposed crucifixion, because earth quakes in the area were recorded by the Romans and no such event was recorded for a number of years either side of the supposed crucifixion.
For the above reasons, Josphus and Tacitus cannot be considered as evidence to support the crucifixion of zombie boy.
The only other accounts of the supposed crucifixion were recorded in the canonical gospels. However, the first, Mark, wasn't written until 70 AD and the last, John, not written until the beginning of the 2nd century AD. These cannot be considered evidence because:
a) They are subject of circular proof
b) Their authorship is unknown.
c) Don't quote their sources.
d) Have been translated and re-translated and re-worded on several occasions. Most of the original source material has been lost. Therefore, what the gospels originally stated is unknown.
d) Can only be considered secondary evidence, at best.
The above can hardly be considered as a proof of anything, let alone a religion.
The Romans were great documentalists and yet, in spite of your zombie boy supposedly pulling crowds of 5,000, curing all manner of ills such as blindness and leprosy, walking on water and turning water into wine, write precisely nothing about zombie boy during his supposed lifetime. Strange, no?
I recommend that before you believe in all of this jebus and god bollocks, you get a course in the history of your own religion, you fuckin' illiterate moron.
|
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
Thank you for the history lesson Hertz. How the fuck do you have such a good knowledge of this stuff? You must have gone to school for it.. where you a student of Bart Erhman???
A few things I disagree with.
Firstly, I find it odd how atheists make a big deal that there are few "extra biblical" sources about Jesus. The gospels, and Acts, and letters of Paul - and all the zillions of copies made of these important early sources, were not when written a single work called the Bible. The Bible is just a collection of works. If we had some of the documents Rome undoubtedly must have wrote about Jesus (which must have been lost obviously) maybe they would have been put in the Bible as well - then you would be arguing that there were no African, Asian or North American sources beyond the "babble". etc. LOL.
Secondly your statement that people allegedly supported the resurrection narrative because it was politically correct to do so is just bull shit pulled out of your ass. This is just speculation. Mainstream new testament scholars who look at the evidence with scepticism agree that the people of Jesus's time believe he was resurrected. I think your mentor Bart Erhman would agree that the early Jews who were witnesses or heard about the events from credible sources (by oral tradition) "believed".
I do agree that the gospels are "secondary evidence" about the events which at least appeared to be a valid ressurection. Thank you for admitting there is evidence!!! - dishonest cock suckers like Davin lie about that.
|
Everything Hertzy says is pulled out of his ass, sadly which is probably stretched out due to homosexual evil sexual practices. Dishonest cosksucker Davin is indeed. Won't be so "funny" when he's sucking Satan's dick in hell.
JJ
|
|
|
03-04-2018, 12:46 PM
|
#3465
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,362
|
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
I wonder if the Resident Retards could concentrate for long enough to read something like this?
.... nope, not a fucking chance! ....
|
Who the fuck would read something some drunk recommends. Not a fucking chance.
JJ
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:45 PM.
|