Poll: Do you believe in atheism?
No
Yes
Not sure (agnostic)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(12-08-2014 03:09 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(12-08-2014 01:51 PM)Skippy538 Wrote:  "bears on its face no evident marks of forgery"

There are plenty marks of forgery. Mark 16:9-20 - Totally Forged. Example 1. Refute that.

Next - define forgery - "Not part of the original author's work?"

You've not proved your point.

There is nothing to suggest Mark 16 is forged. Granted some copies don't have this passage but others do. Christians can be graceful to you and say we will let you exclude this passage, but in the previous verses Mark still says the resurrection took place, except he didn't list the accounts.

Since the original Apostles set up the first churches on their eyewitness testimony their writings have been in their hands and the hands of the Church by the proper repository these past 2000 years.

All of modern scholarship since approx. 1800, evangelical included, concede that Mark 16:9 - 20 was added well after the original text. But as I noted, since no authors actually ever identify themselves, the entire text has no source and therefore cannot be authenticated in any way and all can be seen as a forgery.

How do you explain that early texts don't have it and later ones do?

What the fuck is a "proper repository"? You mean handed down from believer to believer? Who gives a shit? This is some sort of chain of evidence argument?

BTW - eyewitness testimony is CONSISTENTLY proven to be the absolute worst kind of evidence. Further, you have ZERO evidence that the authors of the gospels or Peter, or Acts were authored by people who had direct contact with your Jebus at all. Paul didn't meet him, halucinations aside, and didn't even know who the fuck he actually was. He didn't ever describe the miracles or anything else that the gospels say supposedly happened.

And your timeline is totally fucked. Modern scholarship puts Acts of the Apostles between 80 and 90 AD. Go back and recalculate your timeline cause yours is made up.

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(12-08-2014 03:11 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(12-08-2014 03:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Please give us a list of names of people who were martyred by Nero.

Here is a list. You didn't have to hold your breath for too long.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Nero.htm

How about an impartial source (i.e., not someone who thinks Nero was "the antichrist")? Anyway, I don't see any list of all the apostles. One of the quotations mentions Peter and Paul. So what? Neither of them is reputed to have written any of the gospels. Your claim that all the authors of the NT were martyred by Nero remains unsubstantiated.

By the way, Nero could hardly have been "the antichrist" predicted in Revelation, since that book was written long after his death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2014, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2014 03:37 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
hbl,

you are really trying to get detention aren't you? You really are not a very good student. Lets waste my time a few more minutes because your drivel amuses me..

First lets cover some facts for you, yet again;

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion - A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

Politics - Is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level.

Religion (belief in delusion) + Politics (influence of others) = Decline of society.

Thankfully; as per the book; Is religion dying? By Diana Butler Bass - “In the last dozen years, American religious institutions have undergone a myriad of crises--abuse scandals, conflicts, schism, and partisan political entanglement, to name a few--resulting in a great religious recession. Poll after poll reveals that organized religions --mainline Protestant, evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Jewish --are in varying states of disarray and decline. Sadness, even doom, has gripped many congregations, as the formerly faithful disaffiliate, and those who remain struggle to pay clergy and fix leaky roofs. The unaffiliated and atheists have been rising for thirty years.”

Atheism on the rise around the globe - "According to a new poll, religiosity worldwide is declining while more people say they are atheists. In the United States, a growing number consider themselves non-believers.
Atheism is on the rise in the United States and elsewhere while religiosity is declining, according to a new worldwide poll. “The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism,” conducted by WIN-Gallup International headquartered in Switzerland, found that the number of Americans who say they are “religious” dropped from 73 percent in 2005 – when the poll was last conducted – to 60 percent. And 33 percent of the people polled said that they don’t consider themselves as a “religious person."

jesus superstar:

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"


No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. All sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumerable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, solar eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings.

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

research, read, learn, gain freedom from the delusion, we are here to help oh misguided, misinformed believer in myths. HBL, that pain in your chest and pounding in your head is your inner self fighting the delusion, when faced with irrefutable facts the seeds of doubt begin to take over you, that nagging feeling is logic trying to backhand you into reality.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
12-08-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Sorry for feeding the trolls, I've changed my mind.

Anyone like chocolate cake?

[Image: Chocolate_Cake_with_Marshmallow_Frosting...4x1024.jpg]

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Skippy538's post
12-08-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(12-08-2014 03:16 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(12-08-2014 03:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Nobody knows who wrote the gospels,

We know Luke wrote Luke since he writes to the same person in Acts and says in Acts that Luke was his former work or that Acts is part two of his former work the gospel of Luke. Luke emphasized Jesus as fully man.

We know Mark wrote Mark, very basic like Mark is, and even says he runs in the street naked when Jesus was captured. He emphasized Jesus as servant.

We know John wrote John, places himself at the cross and in his epistles says he saw Jesus resurrected. He emphasized Jesus' deity and love.

We know Matthew wrote Matthew emphasizing Jesus as king as Matthew was a tax collector. His writings are quite regal in fashion.

Bullshit. The original manuscripts had no author attributions at all. They were anonymous. The author names were added later.

Even if the 3rd gospel and the book of Acts were written by someone named "Luke", we don't know who "Luke" was. He was certainly neither an apostle nor an eyewitness -- he admits as much.

"Mark" wrote of someone who ran naked in the streets when Jesus was captured. He does not name this person, nor does he say (or imply) that it was himself.

There is no "Matthew" in the "Gospel according to Matthew". The tax-collector turned apostle is named Levi.

Again, we don't know who wrote the gospels, but there is no good reason to think any of the authors were apostles or eyewitnesses. This is not my opinion -- it is the consensus of professional Bible scholars. I will take their word over your repeated assertions with no evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
12-08-2014, 03:59 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(12-08-2014 03:11 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(12-08-2014 03:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Please give us a list of names of people who were martyred by Nero.

Here is a list. You didn't have to hold your breath for too long.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Nero.htm

Satan told me that his name is Derek.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2014, 04:01 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2014 04:13 PM by Chas.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(12-08-2014 01:33 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(12-08-2014 12:57 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  There are no contemporaneous eyewitness accounts of any such events. Only hearsay.

There are no contemporaneous eyewitness accounts for anything in antiquity except for the eyewitness Apostles in various group settings recorded by them in the NT.

The first churches were built on their eyewitness testimony as soon as Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected the 3rd day.

Oh, Caesar's accounts of the Gallic wars were ghost-written at some later date?

It has been shown that there is no eyewitness testimony from any Apostle.

__________________________

It's time to ban this fucktard. He's just spamming.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-08-2014, 04:05 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2014 04:23 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
hbl, The TRUTH shall set you free brother

The authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles is an important issue for biblical exegetes who are attempting to produce critical scholarship on the origins of the New Testament. Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of The Gospel of Luke also wrote the Book of Acts. These hypothetical connections are dependent upon repeating themes that both of these books share. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron—and perhaps a label for a Christian community as a whole as the name means "Lover of God". Furthermore, the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus—almost certainly the work we know as The Gospel of Luke.

Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the Luke and Acts. As one scholar writes,"the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author". Because of their common authorship, the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles are often jointly referred to simply as Luke-Acts. Similarly, the author of Luke-Acts is often known as "Luke"—even among scholars who doubt that the author was actually named Luke.

The epistle of Philemon, almost universally accepted as an authentic letter of Paul, merely includes the name "Luke" among other "co-workers" of Paul who are sending greetings to the letter's recipients (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians 4:14, but Colossians is widely believed by New Testament scholars to be not an authentic writing of Paul, but "pseudonymous", i.e., written under a false name. 2 Timothy 4:11 also mentions a "Luke" and refers to him being "with me" but most modern scholars do not accept 2 Timothy as an authentic letter of Paul either.

In the "we" passages (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1– 28), the narrative is written in the first person plural — but the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". Some regard the "we" passages as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts. Many modern scholars have expressed doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century. Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text.

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman goes beyond the theory of stylistic insertions to propose that the "we" passages are deliberate deceptions, designed to convince readers that the author was a travelling companion of Paul, even though he was not.

According to Bart D. Ehrman, the "we" passages are written by someone falsely claiming to have been a travelling companion of Paul, in order to present the untrue idea that the author had firsthand knowledge of Paul's views and activities. Erman holds that The Acts of the Apostles is thereby shown to be a forgery.


uhoh, there goes the validity of Luke hbl....

is the light bulb flickering on yet HBL?

[Image: 2mo5jt5.gif]

yup, that just happened

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
12-08-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(12-08-2014 03:02 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(12-08-2014 02:59 PM)wazzel Wrote:  List your sources.

I have no hate for anyone. I would not wish a fate on someone I think is horrible. You are the one doing that, not me.

At the same time you can't be unjust either for it would be evil to allow someone such as yourself to be with God and the Lamb and His people in the New City and New Earth since you hate God and His elect. Similarly we can't let people out of jail who belong there for life. They will harm others.

Christians give you the gospel of salvation out of love because we don't want you to perish, but the choice is free nonetheless, and your choice is to go to Hell. You're a bad guy!

You can find all 45 sources (17 of which are non-Christian) exhaustively detailed that I speak of in 3 books by the leading scholar on the planet for the resurrection Gary R. Habermas:

1) The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
2) Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus
3) The Historical Jesus
I do not hate god, since it would be crazy to hate something I do not believe exist. How dare you judge me! You have never met me and I have been nothing but polite to you, even when you have insulted me. I am done with you, have a nice life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(12-08-2014 04:05 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  hbl, The TRUTH shall set you free brother

The authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles is an important issue for biblical exegetes who are attempting to produce critical scholarship on the origins of the New Testament. Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of The Gospel of Luke also wrote the Book of Acts. These hypothetical connections are dependent upon repeating themes that both of these books share. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron—and perhaps a label for a Christian community as a whole as the name means "Lover of God". Furthermore, the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus—almost certainly the work we know as The Gospel of Luke.

Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the Luke and Acts. As one scholar writes,"the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author". Because of their common authorship, the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles are often jointly referred to simply as Luke-Acts. Similarly, the author of Luke-Acts is often known as "Luke"—even among scholars who doubt that the author was actually named Luke.

The epistle of Philemon, almost universally accepted as an authentic letter of Paul, merely includes the name "Luke" among other "co-workers" of Paul who are sending greetings to the letter's recipients (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians 4:14, but Colossians is widely believed by New Testament scholars to be not an authentic writing of Paul, but "pseudonymous", i.e., written under a false name. 2 Timothy 4:11 also mentions a "Luke" and refers to him being "with me" but most modern scholars do not accept 2 Timothy as an authentic letter of Paul either.

In the "we" passages (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1– 28), the narrative is written in the first person plural — but the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". Some regard the "we" passages as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts. Many modern scholars have expressed doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century. Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text.

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman goes beyond the theory of stylistic insertions to propose that the "we" passages are deliberate deceptions, designed to convince readers that the author was a travelling companion of Paul, even though he was not.

According to Bart D. Ehrman, the "we" passages are written by someone falsely claiming to have been a travelling companion of Paul, in order to present the untrue idea that the author had firsthand knowledge of Paul's views and activities. Erman holds that The Acts of the Apostles is thereby shown to be a forgery.


uhoh, there goes the validity of Luke hbl....

is the light bulb flickering on yet HBL?

[Image: 2mo5jt5.gif]

yup, that just happened

Awesome posts gwog! Even though hbl won't read them, I have and enjoyed them.

I'll post this rebuttal to the 10/42 apologetic again that hbl ignores:

1. The 10/42 Is Misleading about the Literary Sources for Jesus

2. The 10/42 Is Flatly Inaccurate about the Literary Sources for Tiberius, which Actually Comes Out to 44/42

3. The 10/42 Stretches the Window of Time to Skew the Results

4. The 10/42 Ignores Epigraphical Evidence

5. The 10/42 Ignores Papyrological Evidence

6. The 10/42 Ignores Numismatic Evidence (You know, coins with Tiberius' face on them?)

7. The 10/42 Ignores Archeological Evidence

8. Not All Historical Sources Are Equal Excerpt- "We have already seen that many of the sources for Tiberius were written either during or much closer to his life, whereas Jesus’ are distant second, third, and fourth generation accounts."

9. Chronologically, Whose Life Can We Reconstruct Better: Tiberius or Jesus? Jesus' chronology only has three broad dates associated with his life. Tiberius has 16 major points in his life that even have exact days associated with him!

10. At the End of the Day, Whom Do We Know More About?
"The total score card for contemporary written sources comes out to 14 literary, 100+ epigraphical, and ~100 papyrological for Tiberius in comparison to 0/0/0 for Jesus."

Ten Reasons to Reject the Apologetic 10/42 Source Slogan

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: