this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
942 points (94.3% liked)

Comic Strips

12729 readers
2625 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Take it up with Erhman. He is a big boy and can defend his views. Still waiting for the supposed evidence for your zombie in this "debate".

You think you know better than God and want to be your own God. Hence the deconversion.

Again with the mind reading.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Thallus (b. 52AD) might have wrote about a darkness and earthquake happening when Jesus was crucified.

Pliny the Younger (b. 61AD) testified to Jesus and talked how His followers thought He is God, and how they worshipped Him.

Phlegon (b. 80AD) likely confirmed the darkness and Jesus predicting the fall of the temple, also confirmed the crucifixion and resurrection

Celsus (b. 175AD) confirmed Jesus had powers and that He was believed to be born of a virgin

Flavius Josephus (b. 37ad) confirmed He existed also and was reportedly resurrected.

The Jewish Talmud confirmed Jesus existed and was crucified, although came 400 years after the fact.

Then there's the entire Isaiah 53 prophecy we have from 700 years before Christ, the earliest copy being from 100 years before.

Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Then of course you have the New Testament on top of that.

This is more evidence than we have for other historical figures from around that time. Salvation is a free gift. It's up to you whether or not you believe in it and accept the reality that God is real, that He really came down as man, died, then rose again.

Of course, people will sooner believe that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and that Christmas is originally pagan, both claims with no evidence, than this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Thallus (b. 52AD) might have wrote about a darkness and earthquake happening when Jesus was crucified.

Don't have his direct work, we have quote of a quote from a Christian apologist centuries later. Which even if Thallus has said there was an earthquake and there was one it would have made it easy for the Gospel writers to insert in.

Historical event happens.

Gospel writers use it to place Jesus at a certain time.

Historical event is mentioned

Therefore Jesus.

Sorry doesn't work. If I wrote a story about a guy who died on 9-11 proving 9-11 happened doesn't prove my guy existed.

Pliny the Younger (b. 61AD) testified to Jesus and talked how His followers thought He is God, and how they worshipped Him.

At this point I am pretty sure what kinda person you are. Pliny the younger wrote a letter 90 years after the supposed events mentioning Christians existing. That isn't proof of Jesus it is proof that Christianity existed in the 2nd century. Which everyone knows!

Phlegon (b. 80AD) likely confirmed the darkness and Jesus predicting the fall of the temple, also confirmed the crucifixion and resurrection

Again. Not a contemporary and we don't have what he wrote.

Celsus (b. 175AD) confirmed Jesus had powers and that He was believed to be born of a virgin

Again. Not a contemporary. You can't confirm in 210 AD events in 30AD.

Flavius Josephus (b. 37ad) confirmed He existed also and was reportedly resurrected.

Again not a contemporary. He has two passages referring to Jesus and wrote both 40 years after the supposed events. At best. Both passages passed through Christian hands for so long that even if there was a seed of truth to them we can't confirm it.

Passage 1. Is a known to be fraudulent passage. Expressing Trinity ideas that didn't even exist in the 1st century.

Passage 2. Is a likely fraud but even at best only confirms James existence which we already knew.

The Jewish Talmud confirmed Jesus existed and was crucified, although came 400 years after the fact.

The Talmud mentions two Messiah figures that are really not close to Jesus. The most in-depth one puts Jesus at 100BCE. Additionally we don't have any chain of custody on those stories.

Then there’s the entire Isaiah 53 prophecy we have from 700 years before Christ, the earliest copy being from 100 years before.

Only Chrisitian apologetics consider it to be talking about Jesus. No one else does. Read the whole page and it is clear it isn't. Also prophecy doesn't prove history.

Then of course you have the New Testament on top of that.

Yes those stories written in Greek by non-eyewitness as propaganda decades later.

This is more evidence than we have for other historical figures from around that time.

Let's see it.

Salvation is a free gift. It’s up to you whether or not you believe in it and accept the reality that God is real, that He really came down as man, died, then rose again.

Your god is a lie and your Messiah is a con made up by James and Paul to make money and get sex.

Of course, people will sooner believe that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife and that Christmas is originally pagan, both claims with no evidence, than this.

Mary was most likely a paid actress and Christmas was pagan.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I love how after all of that saying "not contemporary" "not contemporary" "not contemporary" for stuff written closer in time to what we know about the majority of historical figures that lack contemporary records, just to try and claim the myth that "Christmas is pagan" despite there literally being zero evidence to support that.

What are you referring to as "Passage one". "Trinitarian ideas" literally appear in the Bible. Don't know what you're on about.

Only Chrisitian apologetics consider it to be talking about Jesus. No one else does.

Yeah because if they did then they'd be Christian apologists, won't they? (do suppose you could also perhaps be an Islamic or Mormon apologist if you did, but still)

Let's see it

I just shown you it.

Considering as well paul wrote about how he didn't have sex and hated having money, but the fact you just use really weak arguments that would dismiss the VAST MAJORITY of historical figures if applied to them goes to show the double standards required to achieve atheism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Decades/centuries later is not contemporary. Half of the sources you listed are further in time than me and you are from the grandfather of George Washington for scale. Why does your god hate you so much that it can't just give you a single secular eyewitness?

I am sorry your Saturnalia didn't go well this year btw.

What are you referring to as “Passage one”. “Trinitarian ideas” literally appear in the Bible. Don’t know what you’re on about.

Of course you don't. When you blindly copy off blogs you miss naunce. Go right now and read the Annuals of the Jews, the complete context, of both passages. And while you are at it read what the Gospel of John really says and Paul while you are at it.

The Trinity is not in the Bible. Trinity-light ideas are in there. The Josphius passage expresses a more refined view of the Trinity that did not exist in 75AD. It also isn't in his writing style, is out of context, expresses Messiah views that go against other things the man wrote, and finally praises Jesus way more than any Orthodox Jewish person would.

But it gets worse. The first time this passage is even commented on is about 250-300 years later. The first person who mentions it existing was known to be pretty credulous and would have spent good money to anyone who had a book with his Lord in it. Additionally we have records of other people referencing that book and arguing about Jesus who don't mention that passage.

The second passage refers to James and just happens to use the exact same words that Matthew did at one point. Hinting that someone who knew the Gospel added this sentence fragment in. Now we have some ideas that James lived to be an old man but if you follow the timeline he would have been in his 80s if that James and him were the same person. Kinda hard to believe they would have even bothered killing a guy that old. In any case even if they had we still have to wonder why the Jews of Jerusalem suddenly like James and rioted over his death when we are told by other sources that he wasnt liked.

If we look at the James passage and take out the three words that clearly are borrowed from Matthew we get a much more straightforward story. A guy named James was some Rabbi and he got killed by another Rabbi during a religious multi-faction civil war and he was well liked by some so a riot happened. If we put those three words in we have the main character syndrome problem where everything revolves around James and at the same time no Roman leader moved against this guy despite decades of following the would be king of the jews.

Occum's razor. The passages are fraudulent.

Considering as well paul wrote about how he didn’t have sex and hated having money,

You are being credulous and I was more referencing the James community plus the 12. There are tiny references to some weird sex stuff going on and for people who claimed to hate money they seemed really good at getting it.

VAST MAJORITY of historical figures if applied to them goes to show the double standards required to achieve atheism.

Misdirection. Stay on topic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why does your god hate you so much that it can't just give you a single secular eyewitness?

Because then they wouldn't be secular...

I am sorry your Saturnalia didn't go well this year btw.

I had a pretty decent time between the 17th and 23rd of December. But Christmas which was on the 25th far outshone it.

Show me the exact Josephus quote you are referring to so we're on the same page

The Trinity is not in the Bible

‭Matthew 28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because then they wouldn’t be secular…

Bullshit. If you had a non-christian who wrote down that he saw Jesus he would be a secular disinterested party.

had a pretty decent time between the 17th and 23rd of December. But Christmas which was on the 25th far outshone it.

You know the calendar changed right? Please tell me you know this.

Show me the exact Josephus quote you are referring to so we’re on the same page

No. You didn't come prepared that isn't my fault. There are two passages and a million websites that break it down.

Matthew 28:19

Not seeing the part where it says they are coequal. Point it out to me. Bet you didn't even read what Paul said.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Bullshit. If you had a non-christian who wrote down that he saw Jesus he would be a secular disinterested party.

You're ruling out basically every historical figure here

You know the calendar changed right? Please tell me you know this.

What specific calendar change are you referring to?

Not seeing the part where it says they are coequal. Point it out to me. Bet you didn't even read what Paul said.

‭John 1:3 ESV‬

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

‭John 10:30 ESV‬

"I and the Father are one.”