940
The Ark
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
940 points (94.3% liked)
Comic Strips
12624 readers
2912 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"debate" is not how I would describe whatever it is you think you are doing.
Of course the Bible is real. It is as real as any other work of fiction. Batman and Jesus are equally real in sense that people can talk about them.
There is no god and you are not a fucking mind-reader.
Don't need your permission, Christian. Your lot ain't running things anymore. Can't exactly burn me at the stake.
Sorry not sorry that Jesus never existed and you are wasting your life on a 20 century old con.
You’re kinda being a dick about it though, honestly.
Jesus definitely existed, there are historical records of him and his crucifixion. The Romans were good at records and government and shit.
Whether he was a mystical being, debatable (by others, I don’t believe in space wizards except Jedi) but frankly your approach here is just as vile as the dude you’re arguing with.
What’s super gross is you’re othering them based on their religion.
Yeah yeah I suck, get in line and take a number.
Better tell these losers. Not a single one noticed his existence until after the Mark Gospel was written and widely published. Not a single shred of contemporary evidence, an inconsistent biography, a story that even removed supernatural events stretches plausibility to the breaking point.
Very well show me the contemporary record.
Which makes it even worse. They were good at it and yet the records for Jesus aren't there. The first Roman official that even mentions the Christians was after they had been around for decades and he doesn't even seem to know what rank Pilot had.
Yeah yeah I suck. Get in line and take a number.
Oh shit 60 years of the events isn’t contemporary enough.
Hannibal didn’t exist either, I guess.
Yes sixty years isnt contemporary. I am not a contemporary of LBJ or Dr. King or Malcom X, I am not wearing tight bellbottom jeans or worrying about the Soviet Union nuking me. I am not mourning JFK. Nor am I protesting US military action against Charlie by burning my draft card.
Noticed how even people in the area at the time didn't see anything? I gave you a chart did you even bother looking at it?
Misdirection, stay on topic. Why can't you prove that your zombie was real?
Enjoy your fight my dude.
I don’t believe in the resurrection nor do I believe in any of this except for the idea that people ought to be allowed their own beliefs AND your language of othering that dude is fucking gross.
You can pat yourself on the back, you’ve won the argument you think you’re having with me the same way a skunk does.
Tolerance isn't the same thing as acceptance. I tolerate religious beliefs, I don't accept them without evidence. Just because I believe it should be legal for people to believe in 20 century old con by James and Paul about a made up figure doesn't mean I accept it as true and don't call it out.
Sorry the evidence didnt back up your claims today.
You have given all the evidence my claim needed my dude.
🦨
C'mon man, even Ehrman knows that's stupid 🤣
See, you aren't really interested in any intellectual argument. It's a heart issue. You think you know better than God and want to be your own God. Hence the deconversion.
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".
Again with the mind reading.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Again. Not a contemporary and we don't have what he wrote.
Again. Not a contemporary. You can't confirm in 210 AD events in 30AD.
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 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.
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.
Yes those stories written in Greek by non-eyewitness as propaganda decades later.
Let's see it.
Your god is a lie and your Messiah is a con made up by James and Paul to make money and get sex.
Mary was most likely a paid actress and Christmas was pagan.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Misdirection. Stay on topic.
Because then they wouldn't be secular...
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
Matthew 28:19
Bullshit. If you had a non-christian who wrote down that he saw Jesus he would be a secular disinterested party.
You know the calendar changed right? Please tell me you know this.
No. You didn't come prepared that isn't my fault. There are two passages and a million websites that break it down.
Not seeing the part where it says they are coequal. Point it out to me. Bet you didn't even read what Paul said.
You're ruling out basically every historical figure here
What specific calendar change are you referring to?
John 1:3 ESV
John 10:30 ESV