The easy Jesus test
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2013, 12:06 PM
The easy Jesus test
Since believers are afraid of Jesus not being recognized for the Second Coming and Rapture.
Since there's a number of fake Jesuses (what's the plural of Jesus anyway?)... there's an obvious need for a fail-proofed test.
Religion, and a bit of science have the solution though.

You only need to test DNA of the potential Jesuses against the (obviously human) DNA contained in church wine and church crackers.

By the Vatican's own logic, either this works or there's a loophole in that one as well. Now good luck finding the guy whose blood tests the exact same as rotten grapefruit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GaëlK7's post
31-07-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: The easy Jesus test
Jesus is real. He's the best gardener/landscaper we ever had. He was on vacation, but he already came back. He just got I raise I hear. He knows more about horticulture than a plant biologist. No need for no stinkin' DNA tests. His grand-kids look exactly like his wife. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-08-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: The easy Jesus test
(31-07-2013 12:06 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  Since believers are afraid of Jesus not being recognized for the Second Coming and Rapture.
Since there's a number of fake Jesuses (what's the plural of Jesus anyway?)... there's an obvious need for a fail-proofed test.
Religion, and a bit of science have the solution though.

You only need to test DNA of the potential Jesuses against the (obviously human) DNA contained in church wine and church crackers.

By the Vatican's own logic, either this works or there's a loophole in that one as well. Now good luck finding the guy whose blood tests the exact same as rotten grapefruit.

You could narrow down your pool of potential "Jesuses" by only testing the one's with human bite marks (or with large bits of skin missing) all over their body and low blood pressure do to low blood volume.

"I am a knowledgeable man, I have knowledge. If I knew how I knew what I know, I would know half as much, because it would be clogged up with where I knew it from...that is why I cannot always cite my sources. - David Mitchell
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Picard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: The easy Jesus test
Can't you do an M&M Test?

Have suspect Jesus cup his hands.

Pour M&M's into his cupped hands.

If the M&M's don't fall through the spike holes in his hands.... Fraud.

NEXT!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Regular_Joe's post
03-08-2013, 01:45 PM
RE: The easy Jesus test
(31-07-2013 12:06 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  what's the plural of Jesus anyway?
Jesi ?

Humans arrived on Earth on 22 October 4004 B.C. A few of us are still trying to repair the ship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like f stop's post
03-08-2013, 07:25 PM
RE: The easy Jesus test
Quote:what's the plural of Jesus anyway?

Phonies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Minimalist's post
04-08-2013, 12:32 AM
RE: The easy Jesus test
(31-07-2013 12:06 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  Since believers are afraid of Jesus not being recognized for the Second Coming and Rapture.
Since there's a number of fake Jesuses (what's the plural of Jesus anyway?)... there's an obvious need for a fail-proofed test.
Religion, and a bit of science have the solution though.

You only need to test DNA of the potential Jesuses against the (obviously human) DNA contained in church wine and church crackers.

By the Vatican's own logic, either this works or there's a loophole in that one as well. Now good luck finding the guy whose blood tests the exact same as rotten grapefruit.

There obviously isn't DNA contained in church wine or wafers, and proof of this would be enough to debunk the catholic church's stupid claim. Of course I'm not the first person to consider it, but so has the Catholic church which has readily available nonsense answers. It's funny how they're so certain that they know the truth while on the other hand claiming that it's unverifiable. For those who don't care to read them, the arguments boil down to "transubstantiation doesn't change the physical characteristics that one could sense or measure, but instead changes the food spiritually".

Testing the Eucharist isn't necessary. Claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2013, 02:15 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2013 08:43 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The easy Jesus test
(04-08-2013 12:32 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(31-07-2013 12:06 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  Since believers are afraid of Jesus not being recognized for the Second Coming and Rapture.
Since there's a number of fake Jesuses (what's the plural of Jesus anyway?)... there's an obvious need for a fail-proofed test.
Religion, and a bit of science have the solution though.

You only need to test DNA of the potential Jesuses against the (obviously human) DNA contained in church wine and church crackers.

By the Vatican's own logic, either this works or there's a loophole in that one as well. Now good luck finding the guy whose blood tests the exact same as rotten grapefruit.

There obviously isn't DNA contained in church wine or wafers, and proof of this would be enough to debunk the catholic church's stupid claim. Of course I'm not the first person to consider it, but so has the Catholic church which has readily available nonsense answers. It's funny how they're so certain that they know the truth while on the other hand claiming that it's unverifiable. For those who don't care to read them, the arguments boil down to "transubstantiation doesn't change the physical characteristics that one could sense or measure, but instead changes the food spiritually".

Testing the Eucharist isn't necessary. Claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Those are pretty hilarious comments from Catholic Answers. Such amazingly HUGE edifices of garbage they build in theologies, to explain away the cognitive dissonances. What's even more amazing is that in the 21st Century they are still talking in Medieval and ancient Greek gobbeldy-gook. They still attempt to make a distinction, (well one or two did, the rest don't even know their own cult's Systematics), between "substance" and "accident", (that strange dualism the Greeks cooked up). So they say even if a DNA exam were run, it would still show just bread and wine, *as if* there were an entire level of "missing reality" that is the substance, *under the "accidentals"*. It's just so much crap. Richard Dawkins in his debate with Cardinal Pell, in Australia a couple years ago, challenged him on exactly this subject, and told him that whatever it was, he meant to say by repeating those nonsense words, and whatever sort of language he was using, it was not what humans in the 21st Century hear and mean when they say those words, in the English language. (IE he told him his words were meaningless). Changing a "substance", (by magic), while not chagrining the "accident" is just "alchemy" at it's worst. It's a left over concept from pre-scientific times.

Also the notion that Jebus "instituted the Eucharist" is rather funny. The earliest documents/writing don't have a very developed theology of it, and obviously Paul got it from the Greek mystery cult's "thanksgiving feasts/mysteries" which were rather common, (and they were their competition). There is no "institution" (of the Eucharist) in the (long) "Last Supper" in John's gospel, (which is rather surprising .. as they do have a Passover meal). But THE most compelling argument is the obvious culture clash. NO Jew would ever even consider having anything to do with "ritual" blood ingestion. It would make them vomit, even thinking about it, to say nothing of actually drinking it. All of "Kosher" was set up to avoid precisely that. It was an "offensive thing", (often mistranslated as an "abomination"). It's simply impossible, that a Jew would even consider such a thing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-08-2013, 07:33 AM
RE: The easy Jesus test
I asked a Catholic friend about communion, if the wine and crackers actually turned into the blood and flesh of Jesus. (As opposed to it just being some non-literal ritual that they practiced as a tradition.) He said yes, and that they believed it on faith.

My next thought was if we pumped someone's stomach who'd recently gone through communion, couldn't we extract the DNA of Jesus and have him cloned?

Needless to say, he didn't really care for that thought....

“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.”

- Bertrand Russel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes eksyte's post
04-08-2013, 07:34 AM
RE: The easy Jesus test
(03-08-2013 01:45 PM)f stop Wrote:  
(31-07-2013 12:06 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  what's the plural of Jesus anyway?
Jesi ?

Jesii or a "Mexico"

The secret to a happy life is lowering your expectations to the point where they are already met
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: