He saved billions

By doing what? Dying and getting his corpse tossed into a garbage pile somewhere in roman judaea? The resurrection story is a myth and magic is impossible.

King Arthur existed though

>The resurrection story is a myth and magic is impossible.
Really? So all the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of people who saw Jesus after he died are *all* fake? Keep in mind these came from both followers and people who despised him. And Peter, who knew Jesus personally, who became a martyr because of what he saw was just lying? People aren't willing to die for things they believe aren't true.

>>Really? So all the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of people who saw Jesus after he died are *all* fake?
Yes actually, all the stuff written in your bible about your supposed godman rising from the dead is fake propaganda designed to get people to convert.
>>Keep in mind these came from both followers and people who despised him.
According your bible, maybe. That book is only really a reliable source if you yourself are already a christian. I see no reason to take it seriously.

>>And Peter, who knew Jesus personally, who became a martyr because of what he saw was just lying?
Either that, or he was delusional in some way.
>>People aren't willing to die for things they believe aren't true.
This assumes that the accounts in question are accurate, that your bible is accurate. I see no reason to believe this. Your mythology is as fictional as any other.

>"Someone was brought back from the dead using alien technology"

-"Oh that makes sense"

>"Someone was brought back from the dead using magic, or by miracle of God".

-"That's impossible."

youtube.com/watch?v=Az8fQDKqIgY

Or to put it more succinctly, how do you know the limit of what is possible user?

>>And Peter, who knew Jesus personally, who became a martyr because of what he saw was just lying?
In addition to what I said above, it's also highly possible that the accounts of the events in question are simply made up by later authors.

>hundreds of eyewitness accounts
lol

>>"Someone was brought back from the dead using alien technology"
Define brought back from the dead. We have technology that can revive people who have been clinically dead for a very short period of time. This is not the same thing as anything that christians assume their deity is capable of.

>"Someone was brought back from the dead using magic, or by miracle of God".
>"That's impossible"
Yes that would be correct. Magic isn't real and miracles are basically magic in slightly more respectable disguise.

>>youtube.com/watch?v=Az8fQDKqIgY
What does a cheesy sci-fi action flick have to do with anything?

>>Or to put it more succinctly, how do you know the limit of what is possible user?
You see, there's this thing called the scientific method, and there's this other thing called the burden of proof and how it rests upon the people making the extraordinary claims. There is a distinctive lack of supportable evidence for miraculous or otherwise extraordinary claims.

I wasn't just referring to the Bible you dingus, I was referring to the other sources of which there are plenty. But since you seem to have the arguing style of the average 14 year old internet atheist I'd like to respond to a couple of your points.
>That book is only really a reliable source if you yourself are already a christian.
You can't just dismiss historical writings because you don't like them.
>Either that, or he was delusional in some way.
What reason would he have to lie about that? Saying the things he did is what got him killed.
>I see no reason to believe this.
The entire thing? You do realize that the Bible is not a single book right? It's a collection of books written at different times by different people sometimes in different genre.

The true lord.

google.ca/amp/www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/april/why-you-can-believe-in-the-resurrection?amp

lifehopeandtruth.com/god/who-is-jesus/jesus-resurrection/

*Blocks your path*

>>You can't just dismiss historical writings because you don't like them.
It's not about like or dislike. It's about probability and the supernatural claims in the bible are highly improbable at best.
>>What reason would he have to lie about that? Saying the things he did is what got him killed.
Delusional people say and do stupid things, sometimes they get themselves seriously injured or killed as a result.
>>The entire thing? You do realize that the Bible is not a single book right? It's a collection of books written at different times by different people sometimes in different genre.
I was specifically referring to the supernatural/mystical/magical claims contained in the book in question. That said, there are reasons to doubt some of the historical claims as well.

>Was Iesus Ra El?

What you're really asking user, fundamentally, is whether you're willing to take the reverse of Pascal's wager and completely throw all your morals (assuming you have any) in the garbage.

The fundamental commandment of Jesus Christ was to love one another, with the "Golden Rule" as an extension of that philosophy.

The reverse argument to a God who watches and judges you, is one who does not care or does not exist (opposing opposite opposites premises (have fun with that Hagel)). Thus when asking "Was Jesus real", what you're really asking, by extension, is "should I be moral".

youtube.com/watch?v=HjMiwxCQqW4

Nice biased sources. Still not credible evidence for the claims in question. Oh and the first one repeats the silly idea that the bible has had numerous copies made as though that proves anything other then christians made lots of copies of their sacred text.

>the supernatural claims in the bible are highly improbable at best.
Sure, but the nature of a miracle is something improbable, and if we have these sources that attest to these supernatural events, why not take them seriously?
>Delusional people say and do stupid things.
Is that the best you can come up with? Peter was a martyr, someone who willingly dies for their cause, not your typical death from stupidity I would say.
>That said, there are reasons to doubt some of the historical claims as well.
Sure, but that's a risk in all old historical documents.

>This source is invalid because I don't like it!
Very typical of an atheist and it's quite ironic that they brand themselves as the people who have evidence on their side and then ignore all evidence that contradicts their belief system.

>>Sure, but the nature of a miracle is something improbable, and if we have these sources that attest to these supernatural events, why not take them seriously?
Because of the improbability. I see no reason to believe someone rose from the dead because you have some 2000 year old book that says they did.
>>Is that the best you can come up with? Peter was a martyr, someone who willingly dies for their cause, not your typical death from stupidity I would say.
Someone can willfully die for their cause and still be deluded, and this still assumes the accounts regarding his death are accurate and not just more christian mythology like the resurrection itself.

Blah blah, what the fuck ever pal. I have neither the time nor the desire to wade through some tedious apologist website at 5 minutes to one in the morning.

>Define brought back from the dead. We have technology that can revive people who have been clinically dead for a very short period of time. This is not the same thing as anything that christians assume their deity is capable of.

>What does a cheesy sci-fi action flick have to do with anything?

In said cheesy sci-fi flick/tv show aliens possessed technology that could literally resurrect the dead, provided they hadn't decomposed. It was meant as an illustration of the argument that given "impossible" effect may be achievable by science/technology, and you would have no issue accepting it as such even though it is currently thought "impossible".

>Yes that would be correct. Magic isn't real and miracles are basically magic in slightly more respectable disguise.

You don't know that; you only have no recorded "scientific" observation of it. Not the same thing at all. Consider the argument in the context of simulation theory and the system programmer./controller.

Okay let's cut this short. Your claim is that Jesus was revived through alien technology or some shit? The same problem regarding the burden of proof is present with this claim as well. These are extraordinary claims, and nobody with any sense is going to just believe them because you or anyone else says so. Nor is there any reason to assume that any of them happened.

>Because of the improbability.
So you can't believe in something improbable even though there's numerous written accounts of it happening?
>because you have some 2000 year old book that says they did.
It's old therefore it's wrong? What kind of stupid logic is that?
I suppose you can't convince some people no matter what you give them.

>>So you can't believe in something improbable even though there's numerous written accounts of it happening?
No. I can't actually. For the self-same reason why I do not view any written accounts of the trojan war when they mention the intervention of various greek deities.

>>It's old therefore it's wrong? What kind of stupid logic is that?
You cut off the first part of my sentence where I mentioned the improbable claim that somebody rose from the dead. I can easily turn this around and point out that you are believing some really stupid bullshit just because an old book says it happened.

why I do not believe
Gah. I really need to get some sleep.

I'm saying that as a human being living on the earth in the 21st Century, you do not know, and due to the epistemological limits of said form (and the nature via which knowledge has been acquired) you cannot say, that resurrection via magic/miracle is "impossible".

to kill trillions.

BILLIONS

He saved them all, praise him!

Im so glad for our savior.

what are they doing wrong in this picture, they don't look aggressive per se and they seem happy

jesus was from odessa
hohol mafia

To kill trillions...

based and underrated

PREACH!

But has condemned billions or more especially depending on your theology.

Its not that clear cut, our accounts of him are pseudo anonymous gospels produced 70ish years later and whose authorship is known more through tradition and faith than any verification - including some which raise questions over their own authorship. All of which is further muddied by the fact there were a lot of fake gospels and epistles produced during that period.

Biblical historicity alone is not a very good reason to be a Christian.

fpbp

>I can easily turn this around and point out that you are believing some really stupid bullshit just because an old book says it happened.

That is a valid point... however, at the same time, if you actually lived in that time period and saw that it happened, what could you do except write it down?

>what could you do except write it down?
Wait for half a century after the event and then write an account with no date or name in a foreign language?

>Condemns everyone to an enternity of torture.
>Gets praised for not actually doing it to everyone.

>t. damned

>Using the Bible as a source for historical facts
Huh interesting

Genuine kek. Funnier than an actual Geico commercial.

>Yes, the evidence for his existence is overwhelming
Cite 3 contemporaneous sources which aren't obvious forgeries

There are only like 2 tho

Even the Talmud, the preserved oral tradition of the Pharisees, Jesus' enemies, admits that Jesus was historical and performed miracles, but attributes Jesus' miracles to sorcery, just as the Pharisees in the Gospels did. Do you want a better source than that?

Jej

...

>Josephus, for instance, who lived in the same country and about the same time as Jesus, and wrote an extensive history of the men and events of his day and country, does not mention Jesus, except by interpolation, which even a Christian clergyman, Bishop Warburton, calls “a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too,” we can be reasonably sure that no such Jesus as is described in the New Testament, lived about the same time and in the same country with Josephus.

>The failure of such a historian as Josephus to mention Jesus tends to make the existence of Jesus at least reasonably doubtful

Josephus does mention Jesus. That passage isn't a forgery. It's just written in an ironic tone that modern atheists are too autistic to grasp so they dismiss it as a forgery.

>Philo in all his works never once mentions Jesus. He does not seem to have heard of him. He could not have helped mentioning him if he had really seen him or heard of him. In one place in his works Philo is describing the difference between two Jewish names, Hosea and Jesus. Jesus he says, means Savior of the people. What a fine opportunity for him to have said that, at that very time, there was living in Jerusalem a savior by the name of Jesus, or one supposed to be, or claiming to be, a savior. He could not have helped mentioning Jesus if he had ever seen or heard of him
>We have elsewhere referred to the significant silence of the Pagan historians and miscellaneous writers on the wonderful events narrated in the New Testament. But a few remarks may be added here in explanation of the supposed testimony of Tacitus.

The quotation from Tacitus is an important one. That part of the passage which concerns us is something like this:
"They have their denomination from Chrestus, put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.” I wish to say in the first place that this passage is not in the History of Tacitus, known to the ancients, but in his Annals, which is not quoted by any ancient writer. The Annals of Tacitus were not known to be in existence until the year 1468. An English writer, Mr. Ross, has undertaken, in an interesting volume, to show that the Annals were forged by an Italian, Bracciolini. I am not competent to say whether or not Mr. Ross proves his point. But is it conceivable that the early Christians would have ignored so valuable a testimony had they known of its existence, and would they not have known of it had it really existed?

Youre more of an authority on the matter than an actual bishop?

>The Christian Fathers, who not only collected assiduously all that they could use to establish the reality of Jesus—but who did not hesitate even to forge passages, to invent documents, and also to destroy the testimony of witnesses unfavorable to their cause—would have certainly used the Tacitus passage had it been in existence in their day. Not one of the Christian Fathers in his controversy with the unbelievers has quoted the passage from Tacitus, which passage is the church’s strongest proof of the historicity of Jesus, outside the gospels.

>But, to begin with, this passage has the appearance, at least, of being penned by a Christian. It speaks of such persecutions of the Christians in Rome which contradict all that we know of Roman civilization. The abuse of Christians in the same passage may have been introduced purposely to cover up the identity of the writer, The terrible outrages against the Christians mentioned in the text from Tacitus are supposed to have taken place in the year 64 A.D. According to the New Testament, Paul was in Rome from the year 63 to the year 65, and must, therefore, have been an eye-witness of the persecution under Nero

>“And he (Paul) abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him.” How is this picture of peace and tranquility to be reconciled with the charge that the Romans rolled up the Christians in straw mats and burned them to illuminate the streets at night, and also that the lions were let loose upon the disciples of Jesus?

>absence of evidence is evidence of absence

So this is the power of atheist logic.

It's called reason. I don't need to appeal to an authority. You can read the text yourself. The Josephus passage can easily be explained as Josephus mocking Christians, something that bitter Pharisees are wont to do even to this day. There's no evidence that the passage is an interpolation given the manuscript provenance.

>absence of evidence is evidence of absence
But didn't you assert that there was masses of evidence?

>Christians rely mainly on the four Gospels for the historicity of Jesus. But the original documents of which the books in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are not in existence. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever were in existence. This is a statement which can not be controverted. Is it conceivable that the early believers lost through carelessness or purposely every document written by an apostle, while guarding with all protecting jealousy and zeal the writings of anonymous persons? Is there any valid reason why the contributions to Christian literature of an inspired apostle should perish while those of a nameless scribe are preserved, why the original Gospel of Matthew should drop quietly out of sight, no one knows how, while a supposed copy of it in an alien language is preserved for many centuries?

>Jesus himself, it is admitted, did not write a single line. He bad come, according to popular belief, to reveal the will of God—a most important mission indeed, and yet he not only did not put this revelation in writing during his lifetime, and with his own hand, which it is natural to suppose that a divine teacher, expressly come from heaven, would have done, but he left this all-important duty to anonymous chroniclers, who, naturally, made enough mistakes to split up Christendom into innumerable factions

>
Moreover, not only did Jesus not write himself, but he has not even taken any pains to preserve the writings of his “apostles.” It is well known that the original manuscripts, if there were any, are nowhere to be found. We have only copies of supposed original manuscripts. Who copied them? When? How can we be sure that these copies are reliable? Why are there thousands upon thousands of various readings in these numerous supposed copies? What means have we of deciding which version or reading to accept?

>when these documents, such as we find them, are examined, it will be observed that, even in the most elementary intelligence which they pretend to furnish, they are hopelessly at variance with one another. It is, for example, utterly impossible to reconcile Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus with the one given by Luke.

>In copying the names of the supposed ancestors of Jesus they tamper with the list as given in book of Chronicles, in the Old Testament, and thereby justly expose themselves to the charge of bad faith. One evangelist says Jesus was descended from Solomon, born of “her that had been the wife of Urias.” It will be remembered that David ordered Urias killed in a cowardly manner, that may marry his widow, whom he coveted. According to Matthew, Jesus is one of the offspring of this adulterous relation.

>According to Luke, it is not through Solomon, but through Nathan, that Jesus is connected with the house of David. Again, Luke tells us that the name of the father of Joseph was Heli; Matthew says it was Jacob. If the writers of the gospels were contemporaries of Joseph they could have easily learned the exact name of his father

>the biographies of Jesus, are not only written in an alien language, that is to say, in a language which was not that of Jesus and his disciples, but neither are they dated or signed. Jesus and his twelve apostles were Jews; why are all the four Gospels written in Greek? If they were originally written in Hebrew, how can we tell that the Greek translation is accurate, since we can not compare it with the originals? And why are these Gospels anonymous? Why are they not dated?

>It is admitted by scholars that owing to the difficulty of reading these ancient and imperfect and also conflicting texts, an accurate translation is impossible. But this is another way of saying that what the churches call the Word of God is not only the word of man, but a very imperfect word, at that.

>The belief in Jesus, then, is founded on secondary documents, altered and edited by various hands; on lost originals, and on anonymous manuscripts of an age considerably later than the events therein related—manuscripts which contradict each other as well as themselves. Such is clearly and undeniably the basis for the belief in a historical Jesus

To send trillions to hell

>Op panics and responds with a straw man

samefaging faggot