www. jesus fact or fiction .com

[Nephilim Priest]

http://www.jesusfactorfiction.com/

This DVD would convince most people that don’t know any better, that Jesus is real!
Done with “expert” profiles all having Ph.D.’s and or scientific and atheist backgrounds.

Will it convince you?

[none]

fan fiction for only 16 bucks....

[Icarus]

Not to worry about the DVD, the world is literaly crawling with that kind of stuff. My big time chain grocery store has a bunch of little displays scattered around the store. The displays have books that are 90% religious. Take a stroll through Barnes and Noble, Books a Million or other bookstores. Religious books and DVDs cover more space, by far, than any other category. Folks we are awash in religious fantasies and books thaat provide certified proof of fairy tales. Get used to it but plan sneak attacks of common sense against the masses, wherever and whenever you can.

[Nephilim Priest]

Been doing attacks on my face book for awhile, not really sneak attacks more like blatant common sense attacks.

[Icarus]

I am, trying not to resent the Jesus freaks too much. It ain't easy to go with the flow but what are the alternatives. If you go toe to toe with them, they continue to ignore and to refute rational thought.  Sheeesh! 

Direct confrontation has not yielded positive results for a thousand years or so. I think that we need to develope a method that consists
 of chicanery, treachery, espionage, covert operations, etc. If we can hit them without their knowing it, then we might gain some ground. I leave it to the fertile minds of the participants here to devise strategies.

Not to say I do not enjoy having at evangelicals in a direct and even confrontational way. I do like that as a salve for my own frustrations.   

[TexasStargazer]

When will these bible thumping delusional puppets, learn that the brainwashing techniques they use so successfully on the masses, simply will not work on FreeThinkers?

[Lillium]

When will these bible thumping delusional puppets, learn that the brainwashing techniques they use so successfully on the masses, simply will not work on FreeThinkers?

Welcome.

Bible thumping delusional puppet, never heard that one before.  It must work on some of you guys.  I used to hear testimonies at church about how they've brought another person to the lord.  My former-atheist grandfather converted to Christianity too and he was a free thinker.  However, it did take a terminal illness to bring him to Christ. 

We're not all bible thumping puppets, you know.  There is such a thing as a free thinking theist.

[bertatberts]

Will it convince you?

No.

This is a long post so had to split in to two parts.
 
Part one.

There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

There may have been a man called jesus, just the same as there may have been a man called fred.
it by no means make him divine!

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.
Much of the "evidence" cited is false, or suspect, or very late.

Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)




JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
Such is the weakness of this evidence, This suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, go figure.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but it is merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

The Talmud was written over the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
In the tractiate Sanhedrin, page 43a it mentions a Yeshua(Jehoshua), who was hung for forty days before his execution. it also states he was born a hundred years pre-christ and that he had five disciples Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah who were executed along side him.
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and are very different to the Gospel stories
So the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm

This Yeshua is not the same jesus now is he


christianity is simply a mishmash of much older religions, and below is a list of other writers (apart from the ones in the above links) around at the time of this alleged christ, that wrote nothing whatsoever about him.
Some even walked the same paths, but heard and wrote nothing.

Philo Judaeus lived in Alexandria, he spent time in Jerusalem and had family there during the times of Jesus. He wrote many books about the Jews and their religion and history. He developed the themes of the Logos and the Holy Spirit.
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.
Valerius Maximus wrote historical anecdotes c.30CE
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.
Marcus Manilius wrote on astrology/astronomy in Rome early 1st century.
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.

Writers from shortly after Jesus time:
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.
C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.
Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.
Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.
Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of the Kings of the Jews shortly after the time of Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century: ''Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go ... "
Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.
Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times (his works show Stoic and Cynic ideas), and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.
Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome.
NONE of these early writers even MENTIONED Jesus or the Gospel events.
Only AFTER the Gospels became known in mid 2nd century (LONG long after the alleged events) did anyone mention Jesus.
There are about 50 writers from the 1st century - NONE of them mention Jesus.
But,they DO mention many HUNDREDS, maybe even THOUSANDS of characters in their books - including minor nobodies like servants and family, un-important names mentioned once in passing.
But NOTHING about Jesus - who must have been LESS important, LESS known, LESS notable than the most minor nobody.

Heres a few others you may want to look up.
Aulus Perseus (60 AD)
Columella (1 st. cent. AD)
Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
Justus of Tiberious (c. 80 AD)
Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
Lucius Flours (1st-2nd -cent. AD)
Petronius (d. 66 AD)
Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
Phlegon (1st cent. AD)
Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
Plutarch (c.46-c. 119 AD)
Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
Silius Italicus (.25-101 AD)
Statius Caelicius (1st cent. AD)
Theon of Smyrna (c. 70-c.135 AD)
Valerius Flaccus (1st cent AD)
Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD).

There is no historicity for a jesus person.

Now to the gospels

G.Mark

It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for several reasons :
* G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
* G.Mark shows dependence on oral tradition,
* G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
* Ireneus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
* G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton's great work on G.Mark:
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this seems unlikely for several other reasons -
* there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter's secretary,
* G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations,
* G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only mean they are fiction.
* Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray him like that.

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark (and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but "adapted as needed" ... "but not in order". This just does not match at all well with G.Mark, which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted words of Peter.

G.Matthew

It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by a disciple, because :
* it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making changes based on theology, not history
* it conflicts with statements by Papias and Ireneus,
* it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in Greek.

1,2 Peter

Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2 different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably writen in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

G.John

Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness - because :
* the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
* at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and thus rejected),
* it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

False NT attributions

The same is true of all the NT documents (apart from Paul1) - NONE are by an eye-witness, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never met Jesus -
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's or in Brown NT Commentary e.g.


No NT author met Jesus

So, of the NT authors we find -
* Paul only met Jesus in a VISION,
* several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.

In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. You can check this is any modern commentary - try Brown's or the New Jerome or see Peter Kirby's.

"This article is only about the historicity of Jesus - whether he existed as a real person. That is the only point that historians regard as effectively proven; that he existed, not that the claims made about him are true."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus.
nowhere in any Roman records does it state that a jesus person, was executed by Pilate, this is only written in the NT. And the Romans kept meticulous records.

Continues next post.

[bertatberts]

Continued from previous post

Part two

Claiming that the bible is a historical document

In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now, BELIEVES it to be true.

All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal. Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is nonsense - no historian assumes an ancient book to be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.

Consider some other ancient works

The Golden Ass of Apuleius - this "historical document" tells the story of how Apuleius turned into an Ass and met the gods face to face. It dates to the very same period as the Gospels, is set in historical places and includes historical figures and events. It has speeches and stories and miracles and divine events, including an EMPTY TOMB scene!. In short it is very similar to the Gospels.
http://eserver.org/books/apuleius/

The Iliad - this "historical document" is famous and very well attested indeed. This work was seminal in Greek culture and includes real places and realistic people, it has Gods and miracles and speeches and heroes - to the Greeks, Homer was like the Bible.
http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html

Both of these writings are similar to the Gospels and are similarly true - i.e. not particularly true at all. In other words being a "historical document" means nothing about a books truthfulness.

So getting back to the point, yes there could have been a jesus, but not the one written in the bible, thats all, so whether the Muslims have a jesus who was a prophet, or the Jews a Yeshua, who was executed along with his five disciples, a hundred years earlier, does not mean your jesus actually existed.

And NT Authorship

The New Testament alone consists of twenty-seven books written by at least eight different authors. Furthermore, of those eight, only three (Matthew, Peter, and John) were a part of the original twelve disciples. Of the remaining five, two were originally skeptical concerning Jesus' identity. One was a great persecutor of Christians and even consented to the execution of the first New Testament martyr. One was a gentile, and one was a young boy when Jesus lived and taught. Additionally, these New Testament authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. One was a tax collector, another a physician. Another was a highly educated Pharisee. At least two were fishermen while two others grew up as the children of a carpenter and most likely learned that trade."

The NT must be judged on its merits like any ancient writing - and it HAS been so judged and evaluated, it is one of the most studied works in Western culture

With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some one person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).

Papias does make some unclear comments possibly in about 130CE which refer to writings by Mark, and writings by Matthew - however his comments do NOT match our modern Gospels, and he does NOT use the word "Gospel", and he makes it clear he holds such writings in LOW regard.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

Justin in about 150CE is the first to make lengthy quotes of Gospels almost like the modern ones - but he calls them "memoirs of the apostles" as well as "Gospels" but gives NO authors' names.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

Aristides, possibly just before Justin, described a singular, un-named Gospel that had "been preached for a short time". This is an important clue - a church father who mentions "the Gospel, as it is called" - showing that is what it is called "the Gospel", no name, just one. Furthermore he explicitly says it had only been preached for a "short time", perhaps a few years - evidence for when the Gospel became known in Christian circles.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html

Tatian possibly wrote an important work called the "diaTessaron" (literally "from four", implying a harmony of four, meaning a harmony of four Gospels) about 172 (after he split from the early Christian. This numbering of the Gospels as four seems to occur slightly before they are actually named, and may have come about because Tatian inherited the "memoirs of the Apostles" from Justin, and there were four of them, but they had not yet been named.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html

It was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current names with Irenaeus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

So there you have it.

[Whitney]

Direct confrontation has not yielded positive results for a thousand years or so. I think that we need to develope a method that consists
 of chicanery, treachery, espionage, covert operations, etc. If we can hit them without their knowing it, then we might gain some ground. I leave it to the fertile minds of the participants here to devise strategies.

How about we just tell them we have cookies on our side.

[Whitney]

There is such a thing as a free thinking theist.

There are...but they aren't Christians.  Following prescribed rituals, beliefs, etc is not exactly thinking for yourself now is it?  So someone who is bible thumping and whatever else Texas said would fall under not being a freethinker.

[Lillium]

Yeah, I know.  That's why I said theist.  I think people who ascribe to a specific religion is bound somewhat to it and allows others to think for them, even if it's in the most miniscule form.  I don't think I'm completely a free thinker, though I am less bound to my religion than conventional Christians--I think.

[bertatberts]

Yeah, I know.  That's why I said theist.  I think people who ascribe to a specific religion is bound somewhat to it and allows others to think for them, even if it's in the most miniscule form.  I don't think I'm completely a free thinker, though I am less bound to my religion than conventional Christians--I think.

So if you were ask by god to kill someone you wouldn't do it, isn't that a bit dangerous, considering the power of your god.

[Lillium]

People who are somewhat bound to something still have choices and some freedoms.  We just can't do whatever the hell we want and in good conscience call ourselves Christian.  We need to at least love our neighbors and obey the ten commandments.

Yeah, I know.  That's why I said theist.  I think people who ascribe to a specific religion is bound somewhat to it and allows others to think for them, even if it's in the most miniscule form.  I don't think I'm completely a free thinker, though I am less bound to my religion than conventional Christians--I think.

So if you were ask by god to kill someone you wouldn't do it, isn't that a bit dangerous, considering the power of your god.

No, I would not kill someone if God asked me to.  Why? Because that would probably be a voice in my head and not God.  Even if the actual God asked me, I would not do it.  God would have to force me, against my will, to commit murder.  If God did that, I would hate him forever.

[bertatberts]

People who are somewhat bound to something still have choices and some freedoms.  We just can't do whatever the hell we want and in good conscience call ourselves Christian.  We need to at least love our neighbors and obey the ten commandments.

Yeah, I know.  That's why I said theist.  I think people who ascribe to a specific religion is bound somewhat to it and allows others to think for them, even if it's in the most miniscule form.  I don't think I'm completely a free thinker, though I am less bound to my religion than conventional Christians--I think.

So if you were ask by god to kill someone you wouldn't do it, isn't that a bit dangerous, considering the power of your god.

No, I would not kill someone if God asked me to.  Why? Because that would probably be a voice in my head and not God.  Even if the actual God asked me, I would not do it.  God would have to force me, against my will, to commit murder.  If God did that, I would hate him forever.

Then there is hope for you yet. Good on you girl.

[Nephilim Priest]

5 Reasons God Exists

5 Reasons God Exists

[Whateverman]

There is such a thing as a free thinking theist.

I would even be so bold as to suggest that most theists are free thinkers.  They pick and choose which bits make sense to them, or which they think worth adhering to.

Some are obviously more free than others, though

[Icarus]

Bert; That was a powerful (and lengthy) discourse. How did you collect all that  historical stuff?  Hector Arvalos does similarly in his book.  Arvalos is a theologian but he seems to have little patience with the claimed authenticity of the KJV and several of its parallel, but slightly different, bibles.

[ApatheticAtheist]

When will these bible thumping delusional puppets, learn that the brainwashing techniques they use so successfully on the masses, simply will not work on FreeThinkers?

Not to detract from the OP, but this was so simple, yet so profound. So much so that I've just made it my profile quote on Facebook. And yes, I gave TexasStarGazer full credit.  :-)  Let me know if you wish for me to remove it as my Facebook quote.

[Lillium]

Why do "FreeThinkers" strike me as arrogant sometimes? I mean really, some of them carry themselves with an air of intellectual superiority and seem to condescend those who believe differently than they do.  I'm not trying to rag on you all.  I mean, a lot of theists carry themselves with superiority complexes too.  Both act as if their way is the only way.  Well, to be fair, not all of them on either side, but I've noticed that quite a few people seem snooty in their belief systems (or lack thereof).  It always struck me as rather odd.   

[Peter B.]

Sometimes self-confidence may be perceived as arrogance.

[Lillium]

Yes, but there's a subtle difference in self confidence and arrogance.  It's all in the way they treat others.  A self-confident person still treats someone as an equal whereas someone who's arrogant treats others like they are somehow inferior.  Although, sometimes it can be misinterpreted as being arrogance rather than confidence, but still. 

When will these bible thumping delusional puppets, learn that the brainwashing techniques they use so successfully on the masses, simply will not work on FreeThinkers?

When I see something like this, it strikes me as somewhat arrogant.  Perhaps it's counter arrogance? Because the bible thumping folk are arrogant in their assumption that their way is the only way + that they think they can convert the masses.  However, it seems like an act of counter arrogance to say that their methods will never work on FreeThinkers.  Because it seems to me that a true FreeThinker would always remain open, yet wary, of the other side's opinion.  They would, at the very least, entertain the idea, right, as in at least listen to it with an open mind? But then again, I might be confusing a FreeThinker with OpenMinds, but still, FreeThinkers, I think, should be open minded.  Maybe I'm over analyzing and need to sleep.

[Icarus]

NP: Posting that video was a dirty trick that caused me to waste 9 minutes and 45 seconds. The whole bit went to hell. at about the 3 minute mark, when the claim for an ordered universe, by gods decree, was made.  Ordered indeed! Random and disordered is a more nearly valid cosmological position.  These quacks invent science to suit their own devices.  Later the morality tripe caused me to become slightly ill.  Now I will have to take some antacid tablets and it is all your fault.

[none]

Will it convince you?

No.

This is a long post so had to split in to two parts.
 
Part one.

There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

There may have been a man called jesus, just the same as there may have been a man called fred.
it by no means make him divine!

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.
Much of the "evidence" cited is false, or suspect, or very late.

Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)




JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

the first link :http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm: is broken but this link: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/ seems to work...