This was posted 5 years 9 months 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

FREE (Digital Video) Course "The Historical Jesus" by Dr. Darrell Bock @ Credo Courses

149
FREE (Digital Video) Course "The Historical Jesus" by Dr. Darrell Bock @ Credo Courses
Go to Deal
gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 08:00 credocourses.com (242 clicks)
Last edited 15/08/2018 - 12:42 by 1 other user

Free for a limited time.

Dr. Darrell Bock is the author of over 20 books including Breaking the Da Vinci Code, Jesus in Context, and Studying the Historical Jesus. Learn what we can know about Jesus from history.

The Historical Jesus
Could you prove that Jesus existed without using the Bible? Can you name three non-christian ancient authors who mention Jesus?

Related: Watch the first session of this course for free right here.

Christian study the Bible. Historians study history. Or so the story goes. Dr. Darrell Bock quickly puts this myth to rest in the very first lecture of this course.

Believers often feel like they’re gripping the edges of their faith like a rock climber. In this course you’ll learn just how reliable the Biblical picture of Jesus is. You won’t feel like you’re clinging anymore. By the end you’ll feel a renewed confidence. There’s no need to cower from skeptics.

Secularists try to pull Christianity into a neutral discussion of the facts. But the Christians keep winning so the secularists pull harder. Mix biased skepticism with a little time and you get denial. It’s like baking a cake.

Sessions
Non-Christian Sources and Historical Jesus Studies
Three Quests for the Historical Jesus
Three Models for Historical Jesus Studies
Seven Criteria of Authenticity and the Burden of Proof
Early Transmission of Jesus’ History
Three Models of Orality in Historical Jesus Studies
Sources and Their Critical Use in Historical Jesus Discussions
The Nature of Second Temple Judaism in the Time of Jesus
The Characteristic Jesus and the Ancient Bíos Genre
The Infancy Material: Census, Virgin Birth, and John the Baptist
The Ministry of John the Baptist
The Kingdom of God and How it Works
Translating Jesus: From the Gospels to Paul
Second Temple Judaism and the Intensification of the Torah
The Twelve Disciples and Jesus’ Relationship to Sinners
Miracles and Exorcisms of Jesus
The Messianic Secret of Jesus
Jesus’ Intended Audiences
The Demands of Being a Disciple of Jesus
An Overview of the Final Week of Jesus’ Life
How Jesus Saw Himself: Titles and Self Reference
The Un-Triumphal Entry of Jesus
The Cleansing of the Temple
Controversies During Jesus’ Final Week
The Last Supper
The Jewish Examination of Jesus
Jesus Before Pilate
The Resurrection of Jesus

Education

Related Stores

Credo Courses
Credo Courses

closed Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2018 - 08:05
    +3

    The Hysterical Jesus

    FTFY

    Looks like the Christians are on the rampage lately.

    Of course if they'd just be actual Christians and live by John 13:34 & 8:7 everyone would be happier.

    • IVI on 15/08/2018 - 09:16
      +1

      +1

      Meanwhile… O (Orthodox) Jews are offering Libraries, eg: Chabad movement’s:

      • app “Jewish.TV” continues to impress

      Try: former Marriage Counsellor Rabbi Manis Friedman on Intimacy, Lasting Love, Liking Who You Love, etc.
      (His videos on Dating May raise eyebrows, it’s Not for everyone)

      Search for “Manis”

      (Lots Practical Wisdom; useful even to non-Jew, who have No Intention of Comverting…
      Jews Don’t Seek Converts, they just want to be understood, IMO.)

      If that Linrary’s too “O” for U, so try:

      • app “92Y on Demand”

      which covers more ground (eg, Entertainment, Politics, Sci, News, etc.)

      Like Jewish music.

      1. Lotsa modern (not a Chabad app: “jStream”
      2. Lotsa older/traditional (not much in English): “Chandler Music”

      Disclaimer: I am not Jewish, so my opinions are in No way “Official”
      All these are Free to access, so excellent value.

    • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 19:50

      Well not really. Jesus was not very gentile friendly. He referred to the non Jewish woman as the equivalent of dogs you throw scraps to, and that not one iota of the Jewish law was to be changed. Like love thy neighbour, that only refers to other Jews.

      John 8:7 is agreed by all to be a much later interpolation(10th Century addition). So no problem with casting the first stone. Cracked me up when I just noticed this, as I was listening to a talk that mentioned the passage as I replied to your first reference. It must be the work of the gods.
      https://youtu.be/pfheSAcCsrE?t=1952

      • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 20:04

        Can you prove she was not called a dog based on her lifestyle, as we know her daughter was demon possessed? Furthermore, can you explain why he would ask his disciple to go make disciple of every nation if he was not gentile friendly?

  • vietbargain on 15/08/2018 - 08:11
    +2

    I'm catholic and I cringe at these "deals"

    • WatchNerd on 15/08/2018 - 09:01
      +5

      Just these deals, nothing else?

    • IVI on 15/08/2018 - 09:27

      Want something to really “cringe” about?

      Listen to BBC’s “Hard Talk” very recent (~end of July 2018)
      interview with a survivor of:

      • UK (Ireland’s mostly) “Mother & Baby Homes”

      (ie, homes for unwed mums & their bubs.
      Expect a report before year end, &
      a public inquiry Feb 2019.)

      (And I thought Sweden’s (older) “angel makers” was bad…)

    • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 09:41
      +2

      yeah I think they're meant for Christians.

      :P

      • IVI on 16/08/2018 - 05:43
        +1

        Why do you say that?

        Christians i’ve met seem he’ll-bent on converting/recruiting non-Xiang, in my experience.

        Jews I’ve met have No Interest in recruiting non-Jews.

        In fact, a rabbi - approached by a non-Jewish would-be concert -
        can be expected to turn the person away [~3 times].

        So, only the persistent ones are eventually encouraged to learn.

        That said, one will Not be turned away - if you haven’t asked to
        convert -from taking courses, whether free or not, eg, to learn
        Hebrew or an intro to Judaism.

        Jews tend, in my experience, to Encourage Learning (no surprise here…)

        • EightImmortals on 16/08/2018 - 07:34

          "Why do you say that?"

          Because I was having some fun with the Catholics.

          But seeing as how you raised the point I think (if you are being objective)that all 'groups' try to convert people from other groups. Tribalism seems ingrained into human DNA and if it isn't "My religion is best" the it's "The sports team from my location is better than the sports team from your location" or "My political party is better than your political party" "Ford/Holden" etc etc.

          Funny thing is that I don't see a Biblical commandment to 'convert' people or to hassle them about it either. The closest we get is the commandment to 'make disciples' which to me has always meant to help and enlighten those who have already 'converted' (whatever that means?) or, as you say those who are making genuine enquiries into Godstuff. On the other hand we have the examples of John the baptist preaching repentance in public and Jesus teaching people in public as did the apostles so who knows? Either way it's no big deal, you can just say 'no thanks' and go on your way. At this point in time I think we have WAY more things to be worried about than the occasional street preacher or door knocker.

          I remember the Krishna's used to go for converts at the airports, not sure they still do, the atheists tend to do it more online, the scientologists will stop you for a free e-meter reading and even Falun Gong have set up stalls on the street from time to time. As I said, it's more of a human thing than a Christian thing.

          I like the Jewish approach you mentioned for some reason. :)

        • PJC on 16/08/2018 - 07:38

          You cannot be a Jew unless your mother is a Jew.

  • Sabric on 15/08/2018 - 08:19
    +4

    10 Aug, 12 Aug and this one, all free courses
    This looks like a free site. Good news for Former Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson will serve out a 12-month sentence by way of home detention.

  • Trantor on 15/08/2018 - 08:26
    +7

    Any deals on the life of Brian?

    • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 09:42
      +3

      Bwian? Who is this 'Bwian'?

      • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2018 - 09:57
        +3

        Welease Bwian! Welease Bwian!

      • Trantor on 15/08/2018 - 12:48

        He's a very naughty boy!

      • brongz on 15/08/2018 - 14:48

        The friend of Mrs Incontinence Buttox

    • Major Mess on 15/08/2018 - 10:25

      It is quite amazing how much more accurate the life of Brian is. Considering when it was made they did their research.

      • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 11:02
        +1

        Accurate in what way?

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 11:47

          It has a lot of historicity. The rebel groups, the numerous cult leaders, contradictions in religion then and in comparison to the perception today, etc.

  • xev on 15/08/2018 - 08:47
    +6

    Caution: they say that it's 'free' but it will cost you your 'soul'.

    I realize as a good Christian it is your obligation to proselytize,

    But wouldn't it be more fun to stand on a street corner?

    Maybe with a sign stating all of the things you condemn to 'hell'?

    • Dave Id on 15/08/2018 - 12:45

      Costs me my email and telephone number which I ain't giving to this lot.

  • PJC on 15/08/2018 - 08:59
    +8

    OP how much does this course cost normally please?

    • PJC on 15/08/2018 - 17:51
      +1

      It's just a civil question. How much money are we saving please OP?

      • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 17:58
        -1

        Last time you ask me a question and said please. After answering you, you claimed it should be in the forum because its free. And later contradict yourself saying it should be in the forum because of it's not a freebie. Free, not free and value is not important to you. That why I've been ignoring your questions.

        • PJC on 15/08/2018 - 18:05
          +1

          We come here for bargains.

        • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 18:08
          -1

          @PJC: Once you solve the dilemma you created by contradicting yourself. I might consider answering your question.

        • PJC on 15/08/2018 - 19:15
          +1

          @gto21: This isn't about me. You joined Australia's greatest bargains website so you may as well inform your fellow OzBargain Members how much money this bargain would save them.

        • NixMo1 on 16/08/2018 - 05:01
          -3

          @PJC: "we come here for bargains" this coming from the person who was misleading people with his over the top rrp watch posts which had no real savings or bargains sigh

          NixMo1 on 16/08/2018 - 05:01 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • xev on 15/08/2018 - 09:05
    +8

    Secularists try to pull Christianity into a neutral discussion of the facts.

    Oh No, not the facts!

    But the Christians keep winning

    Citation Needed.

    so the secularists pull harder.

    Oh, Behave.

    • joeflacco on 15/08/2018 - 09:56
      -1

      tips fedora

    • IVI on 16/08/2018 - 06:33

      I recently enjoyed two (2) very different talks about Religion and/or Religiosity:

      YouTube “Sapolsky Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity” and

      YouTube “Daniel Dennett -The Evolution of Religion”

      Each is an entertaining speaker… in different ways.

      Enjoy!

  • TheDukeOfNukem on 15/08/2018 - 09:24
    +5

    What is the benefit of this course? It's not a qualification, it's not something 99% of the population would even remotely care about, and it's all in all just an hour or two long boring ass movie, basically.

    I'm serious. What does one gain from this? You wanna call it "Bible 2018: Basic Edition" and explain how the Bible holds even a shred of worth nowadays, be my guest, but don't call it a course, like it's actually worth anything.

    • c64 on 15/08/2018 - 09:38
      +3

      scientology courses are also free and much more entertaining

      then there are the hare krishnas. you get a free lunch as well!

      • TheDukeOfNukem on 15/08/2018 - 09:39
        +3

        Free lunch? That's an actual bargain right there, sign me up, save me the trip to Macca's for the $5 McOz deal for the third day in a row.

      • Dave Id on 15/08/2018 - 12:47
        +1

        Not to mention a great dance routine with the latter.

      • IVI on 16/08/2018 - 06:39

        In Steve Jobs’ graduation speech at Stanford Uni,
        he tells of the time in his life when he used to eat
        at the Hare Krishina’s…

        PS The nearest to HK’s style that I found in vegetarian
        restaurant, set up for the purpose of earning $$ to help
        support Indian student(s) in Medical School. ;~)

    • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 09:44
      -1

      "don't call it a course, like it's actually worth anything."

      You could say the same about most uni courses too. Maybe the worth is in the learning. If you aren't interested in learning something new then no, it won't be of any 'worth' to you.

      • KentT on 15/08/2018 - 12:16
        +4

        University courses are nationally recognised and at worst you use it to pad your credit requirements for a degree.

        This is just nothing.

        • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 12:19
          -4

          The vast majority of student will do one course at Uni. For instance, if you like Accounting, a nursing course will be "worthless" to you. I think that's what he meant. Furthermore, you can study Theology at Uni.

        • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 15:51

          It's knowledge, it's not 'nothing', you know, it's what universities used to be about before they became merely something you had to pay through the nose for to claim your right to work. :)

      • TheDukeOfNukem on 15/08/2018 - 17:36
        +1

        Most uni courses actually, you know, give you a qualification and are actually worth something tangible, even the more useless ones.

        • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 17:41
          +1

          What if you get a qualification but can't find a job. What will it worth?

        • TheDukeOfNukem on 15/08/2018 - 17:44
          +1

          @gto21: It will definitely be better to put on the resume than "I once watched a DVD about Jebus on the interwebs"

        • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 17:51

          @TheDukeOfNukem: I actually know people who had to do another course since they could not find a job. You put your qualification or whatever, end result is the same. What will be the value for that person? Are you going to answer or divert again? For theology as well you can go to Uni if you want a qualification. a lot of things I can learn at home if I don't need a certificate. I might do a free course on business, it can be valuable for me even if its free and no certificate.

        • TheDukeOfNukem on 15/08/2018 - 17:56

          @gto21: Being valuable to you personally, does not make something valuable on the whole.

          I had a qualification, I didn't work in that field, went on to study another field, and am now happily employed in that field. My initial qualification still holds worth, I can still use it if I so choose, it also shows that I've put effort in and have expanded my knowledge and experience pool beyond my one currently chosen profession, which (given the chosen fields) is actually quite a positive to have back me up on my resume.

          If I said I watched a DVD about those fields once and did nothing else relating to it, that there would be worthless.

        • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 18:03

          @TheDukeOfNukem: Your still diverting. I did not ask you if your qualification get you another job. You understood the question, but don't have an answer. I never claim its value for everyone. Just like if it's not valuable to you it does not mean its worthless to everyone. I also never claim it will get you a job. So that a straw man argument. I learn a lot of things free online and it has value to me. Some of the most valuable things in life are actually free.

        • TheDukeOfNukem on 15/08/2018 - 23:01

          @gto21: The worth of something can ultimately be determined by it's monetary value or it's usefulness in general.

          A qualification than can be used to get you a job, holds worth.
          A online video "course" can only hold as much worth as you give it.

          Therefore, it is worthwhile to you, but not worth anything in the actual meaning of the word. Thus, being valuable to you personally, does not make something valuable on the whole.

        • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 23:13
          +1

          @TheDukeOfNukem: I never say what's valuable for me is valuable for everyone.I don't know why you keep using this straw man argument. Just like whats not valuable for you does not mean its not valuable for others. Can you learn from online course? In general not just religion. If yes does knowledge have value?

        • TheDukeOfNukem on 15/08/2018 - 23:19

          @gto21: It's not that it's not valuable to me, it's that it holds no value in general beyond an individual's own sense of value.

          I could put up a deal saying that there's a "course" online wherein you learn how to fold a paper aeroplane or tie a windsor knot, is the course of any actual value? No. Could it be valuable to someone who doesn't know how to tie their damn tie? Yes.

          Does that make it have any general overall unarguable value or worth? No.

        • gto21 on 16/08/2018 - 09:56
          +1

          @TheDukeOfNukem: I think I understand your point now. You can say that about all the deals. The number of members on Oz compares to the upvote on the best deals is significantly higher. As a result, most deal has no value for the majority of people on Oz. You can have a significant minority. That for the number one deal. Now if you take another current top deal the free Kindle ebook with 90 votes. That will be a minority. We have over 1300 members online right now, that's early morning in a during the week. The total number of active members is significantly higher. However, I don't care about general. One +1 vote or one thank you is enough for me. I don't care about the general. People focus too much on numbers and forget to focus on individuals. Those courses even among Christians only a minority will be interested. I finally understand what you mean, but its irrelevant for me. I don't care about the general or majority.

        • gto21 on 16/08/2018 - 10:41

          @TheDukeOfNukem: Actually let me correct one thing I said. Since we have about 5 times more guest members than online members. So the probability of it being useful to someone is even much higher. Than the thank you and upvote we see on Oz. As you know I like to focus on individuals, focusing on the majority also can be beneficial. For those courses, it's focusing on a minority. One person finds it useful that enough for me, I don't care about the general or majority. This applies maybe more to some other deals which will target a majority. For instance, most people uses mobile phones. Those courses are not for everyone. It's for a minority is not about general or majority.

  • iratepirate on 15/08/2018 - 10:02
    +5

    If firearms deals are banned because of the contention they cause between members why can't religious "deals" also be banned.

    • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 10:16

      It's your choice whether to get 'offended' or not so maybe people need to have a think about what is actually causing the contention, the deal itself or your reaction to it. It's just as easy to not post or comment if you are not interested in the offer. There are other people who may be, and having everything you don't like 'banned' only impoverishes us all.

      • iratepirate on 15/08/2018 - 10:18

        My point exactly.

        • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 10:45

          Historian/scholars study history. Even non-religious people study this material. Even if it was solely on religion; religious freedom is in the Constitutional law. And we have freedom of speech. Udemy also has several courses on religion. But most people don't complain about it since it also contains other courses as well. This will be a double standard. Everyone should have equal rights, regardless of the number of individuals against it. I personally believe if certain group is a majority (religious or non-religious) in society, they will want to take away freedom of religion and speech. I already knew it before posting those deals. I can see it happening occasionally on social media already. I hope some of the comments will help religious people realize what is coming soon. And to stand up for their right. I can't comment on the firearms, since I was not on Oz for sometimes. I don't know the full story. Were people able to buy them illegally?

  • cornbeef on 15/08/2018 - 10:10
    +2

    Everyone's still waiting on the future Jesus.

    Pastor William Hicks spoke on this quite a bit

  • justtoreply on 15/08/2018 - 10:32
    +1

    I have no problem with someone belonging to a religion (any religion), but I have issues with people pushing it. And early-age indoctrination (to which I was subjected).

    Honestly, you should need a license to practice religion :p a minimum age of 25 and deep understanding of minimum 5 major religions with written exam and essays. It's one of the only life decisions that you need your peak maturity to make.

    If you have that deep understanding and leave others to their own views, I have the utmost respect for you.

    • gto21 on 15/08/2018 - 11:03

      This would be controversial since many parents won't agree. And it will be difficult to control. Certain religions are banned in certain countries. But you still found people practicing it underground. I agree with you about studying other faith. However, not everyone is interested. It will be wrong to force people to study things they are not interested in. I personally study several different religion. Deep understanding is hard, it takes a very long time. Certain religion even after a lifetime studying you won't know everything. And exam for religion is controversial also as people mispresent certain faith to gain converts. I suggest someone should study on his own, listen to arguments for and against and decide for themselves.

      Non-religious scholars/historian study those materials. I did not post it with any intention of converting anyone. I'm not in the business of converting. I don't mind talking about it with people if someone wants to engage in an honest discussion and not for the sake of just debating.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2018 - 11:39
        +2

        Beware the man carrying just one book.

    • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 11:15

      :)

      So which 5 major religions did you study and can you PM me the exams and essays, I'd love to read what your conclusions were. Or did you mean 'other people'? :)

  • Major Mess on 15/08/2018 - 10:35

    "Could you prove that Jesus existed without using the Bible? Can you name three non-christian ancient authors who mention Jesus?"

    This is amazing news and this guy will be surely getting a Nobel Peace prize for this amazing finding.

    No one else has any access to this information. Considering up until this video there has been zero evidence of a historical Jesus the world's top historian and theologians are going to be mind blown.

    This sounds like your previously claimed C14 dating of P66, which also is not known by anyone else on the planet. There are people calling for it to be done, but alas the fear of the truth has not allowed it to take place.

    Considering your claim to great historical knowledge, and your labelling of information you are not aware of as other people's ignorance, how about you back up this claim as well?

    Promoting child abuse in this manner is truly disgusting.

    • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 11:21

      "No one else has any access to this information. Considering up until this video there has been zero evidence of a historical Jesus the world's top historian and theologians are going to be mind blown."

      I was almost convinced that you knew what you were talking about until you made that claim. It is BTW totally false and I'm not aware of any serious scholars who actually argue that Jesus didn't exist. All of the arguments seem to be about whether the accounts are accurate or not and people can study that on their own if they're interested. Nevertheless every 10 years or so someone pops up and claims that Jesus didn't exist and that we have to ignore the eyewitness accounts presented in the Gospels for 'reasons' and that the extra-Biblical sources that mention Jesus were all faked by mad monks later in history yada yada. None of which is true.

      But whatever, I'm not going to argue the details with you, all of the info is out there for those who care to look. I just wanted to call BS on that particular claim. :)

      Cheers

      • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 15:15

        This information is hard for a believer and causes issues of cognitive dissonance. It was not until I was 23 that I first discovered the gospel contradictions and read of various controversies. I was not a believer, but is still had terrible problems of what I now know to be have been my cognitive dissonance kicking in. Even today it causes issues. To discover you had been lied to by your family and community is not heart warming. This subject is claimed to be of utmost importance, but the fact that your teachers couldn't be bothered actually looking into the origins and history is very confusing. Today, thirty years later we have many christian scholars who openly admit the bible is not inerrant, but still blatantly mislead the uneducated.

        Discovering this return of apologetics a few years ago, that I thought of as of the Victorian era, came as quite a shock. It seems to have been the result of the internet and the availability of information forcing the revival. This could at least take some of the shock out of the issue for Christians, but at the grassroots, across Australia the truth is still being hidden from the various congregations. Children are lied to, and future hurt and heart break is having it's foundations sown. It has now made it's way to Ozbargain, and as such is offensive.

        Where are these non biblical eyewitness accounts? Even the biblical authors don't claim to be eyewitnesses, but are writing 40, 60, or maybe 200+ years after the proposed time. What date are they? How were they dated?

        Bart Ehrman(James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has recently published a book where he defends Jesus's existence. He is saying in his point of view Jesus probably existed as a person, not that there is direct evidence of it. He has made a career of many books demonstrating the lack of evidence of historicity, and the amount of evidence of forgery. I reference Bart because he is generally the least controversial and is often referenced by christian scholars.

        For any who do not know, Bart Ehrman was a Southern Baptist minister who through his scholarship became an atheist. His integrity would no longer allow him to mislead his congregation. This is a real problem for clergy who are exposed to evidence that the churches have kept from their followers. These people face the dilemma of preaching something they do not believe and face the loss of their careers, family and community. Many are shunned when they "come out". In the USA there is an organisation called The Clergy Project, where hundreds of ex and current clergy are able to get confidential support with these issues. There is no such organisation here. How many of those responsible for child sexual abuse are actually atheist's attracted to a position of authority and influence to these children? They know it is all made up and there will not be a reckoning for the crimes, and that they will be protected by the various hierarchies.

        The fact is that there are zero contemporary accounts that attest to his existence. All non biblical writings are from the middle ages and are copies of copies, of copies, or copies…. Even within the bible Paul only ever talks about revelations of a divine Iesus. The Gospels are all based on the book of Mark(The Synoptic Problem) - large sections are taken word for word in the synoptic gospels, then each author introduces their own contradictions and extra information to push their own agendas. They were written by competing groups, and it is speculated there were originally 40 to 80 "gospels" in circulation, and we now have access to a few that survived the church's heresy hunters. Many of these early groups had 1, 2, or 350 gods. Marcion had 2 gods, and the Arians(The so called barbarians who sacked Rome) did not agree to the Trinity. The Trinity does not appear until late in the third century, and the church fathers at the end of the second century claimed the Old testament as their sacred text, and that works were the only way to salvation? How did they all get it so wrong, compared to the Nicean Christians of 325CE that we have it today? If Jesus existed on earth, why do the synoptic gospels not know Jesus was God? Why did Paul have to turn up to explain what Jesus meant to say? How were Jesus followers saved considering he had not been sacrificed for their salvation at that time? Why was the earthly crucifixion not a big deal for so many years? Why were they originally followers of Jesus Chrestus, and not Jesus Christ?

        At the end of the argument the theist has only the evidence of a "feeling" to backup their claims. Honest Christians will admit this. They are not alone, and it is the same for Muslims and all other religions. It is a claim of something, they cannot know.

        Dennis MacDonald(Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the Claremont School of Theology), has clearly shown in "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark", that Mark was using Homer's work, in particular the Odyssey for this story. Jesus is Odysseus, the hero.

        A stand out being Odysseus returning to Ithaca disguised as a beggar(so he can check out what his wife was up to while he was away for "only" ten years - with no contact) and being recognised by his old wet nurse by a scar on his leg. She is washing his leg when she sees the scar and drops his foot into the bowl of water. Spilling some onto the floor. She then finishes the wash and anointed him with oil. During this they discuss the treachery of his wife's suitors.

        In Mark 14 a woman breaks a container of expensive ointment and pours it over Jesus's head. Why did she need to break the container? This woman somehow recognises a stranger as Jesus the son of God, and somehow knows he does not have long left to live. When the disciples complain about the waste of the expensive ointment, Jesus explains she is anointing his body for burial. He then says that she will be known for this act where ever the gospel is preached throughout the world. The story then abruptly jumps to Jesus's enemies the chief priests and Judas.

        Odysseus's old lady's name is Eurycleia.
        Eurycleia means broad fame(look up the Greek meaning) - that is, a woman known far and wide.

        Odysseus, Jesus - are recognised.
        Water, Ointment - are spilled/alabaster box broken - Mathew and Luke drop this.
        Odysseus, Jesus - are anointed.
        Coincidence? Maybe, but unlikely.

        Discussion of treachery Suitors/Temple Priests - Judas setting Jesus up. This is oddly thrown at the reader in Mark. (Both discuss the hero's enemies).
        Woman - both known far and wide.
        Coincidence? Highly unlikely.

        There are more parallels than I can remember. eg They both have 12 bumbling and clueless companions. Odysseus journeys across the sea with his companions where they meet the witches who end up turning the companions into pigs - Jesus take a sea journey and casts demons into pigs. There is a strong theme of "testing" in both stories.

        There is a production on youtube by a user caller TruthSurge that presents MacDonald's work as a basis for most of it. It is quite long(37 episodes of 12 to 14 minutes), but I found it very interesting and found some new information. He goes through all of Mark and notes the parallels. With the internet we are able to confirm claims for ourselves.

        https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1D58C69D194384D2

        If Iesus did exist, and I don't know if he did, or was made up of several different Jewish Messiahs, or a divine Jewish archangel, the one thing the available evidence does show is that we cannot know what the original message really was. There are countless youtube debates demonstrating this problem, if you have an interest in the subject. The evidence seems to suggest the Jesus of Philo and Paula as one in the same. They are referring to God's first creation, an archangel who was crucified at the time of earth's creation, for the salvation of all. It was the answer to the loss of the temple, as is the orthodox view of Jesus as the replacement sacrifice. Except that Paul and Philo usurp the point of the temple's existence at all. With the thorough destruction of records by the early fourth century church, we may never have a better understanding.

        The fact that there is no evidence of the word Christian until the 5-8th century Codex Alexandrinus(It needs to be C14 dated), is the final nail in the coffin to any argument as to the legitimacy of the lineage of the cult. All earlier artefacts refer to Chrestians, the followers of Jesus Chrestus(Jesus "the good"). Chrest means good or useful. This includes Codex Sinaiticus our oldest, mostly complete bible - in it the Church at a later date tried to change the eta(e) to an iota(i) - see link below to the copy at the British Library. Vaticanus and Bezae use the intermediate term chreistian - even today the French use chrestian.

        This is a part of a reply I made on Chrestians last month. There is simply no sign of early Christians, not one.
        This seems to have been well known in 19th Century theological and historical publications, but had disappeared from the record until originals became available to view in one place via the Web.

        A Greek iota and eta are not hard to recognise.
        Note: Chrome(and Firefox) browsers can have issues at some of the document sites. Edge seems the best.
        Codex Sinaiticus Online Acts 11:26, 26:28 and 1 Pet 4:16 The greek text on the right highlights"chrestian" in blue. Zoom in on the photo of the original.
        http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=51&ch…

        "Tacitus on christians" (Latin)
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_a…
        The infrared photo is also available on the web.

        Oxyrhynchus Online
        http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/

        List of most of the discovered Chrestian artefacts.
        http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/chrestians%20christian…

        Exorcism Spell - "Magical Papyri" (4th Century) "Excellent rite for driving out daimons: Formula to be spoken over his head: Place olive branches before him,and stand behind him and say: “Hail, God of Abraham; hail, God of Isaac; hail, God of Jacob; Jesus Chrestos, the Holy Spirit, the Son of the Father, who is above the Seven, who is within the Seven………"
        epistles by Mani (4th Century) "I Mani, the Apostle of [Je]su[s] Chrestos (xphctoc) and all the other brethren that are with me …."

        7th Nag Hammadi Codex (4th Century) "But be diligent beloved, and come to the assistance of your brother; for thus it behooves your charity in "Chrest"

        SB XII 10772 - P.Oxy XXXVI 2785 n.2 (3rd/4th Century?) "through Sotas the Chrestian" "In this letter a certain Sotas is employed by the author to transport some money from Antioch to Oxyrhynchus"

        P.Oxy.XLIII 3149 (5th Century?) "I write to you, Apa Theon, I, Heras, a Chrestian, greetings in the Lord. I send your slave Heortasius. According to custom grant him anything that you have. This you will find from before the Lord." There is a cross beside the text. Not the later cross, but the type used by ancients to mark a margin to denote a particuarly "good", or "useful" passage.

        SB XVI 12497 (3rd Century) List of people nominationed to serve various liturgies in the Fayum. Among the nominess for the position of "supervision of the water-tower and fountains of the metropolis", is the person labelled "Chrestian": "Antonios Dioscoros son of Origen, Alexandrian. A second hand, which provides brief notations of the occupations, abodes, or distinguishing characteristics of those listed, notes "he is the Dioscoros (who is a) Chrestian."

        P.Oxy XLII 3035 (3rd Century) An order from the head of the council of Oxyrhynchus to the police officers in a country village to arrest a man described as a "Chresian" (lines 4-5). No reason for the arrest is given(dated 28 February 256 CE). This text does not say christian or χρηστιανοι, but χρησιανοι ("Chresian")

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 15:34

          Can you please let Bart Erhman know he became an atheist not an agnostic lol. Since the information, you copied pasted from www.mountainman.com.au/ seems to know Bart Erhman better than himself. Since he claims to become an agnostic after his studies on his official website lol. Why should anyone take your scholarship you copied paste from mountainman.com.au/ seriously?

        • EightImmortals on 18/08/2018 - 18:02

          Can you link to the source of that wall of text, a lot of it sounds very familiar.

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 18:13

          @gto21: Seriously, how old are you? The only info I copied and pasted was some of the examples of text from artefacts in relation to Chrestians.

          "Can you please let Bart Erhman know he became an atheist not an agnostic lol. Since the information, you copied pasted from www.mountainman.com.au/ seems to know Bart Erhman better than himself."

          I am unaware of any discussion on that website about Bart Ehrman. Can you please provide a link of at least a reference? What are you on about?

          Bart Ehrman some years ago referred to himself as agnostic. He now uses Atheist if it comes up. Simply because Atheist/Theist refers to what you believe. Agnostic?Gnostic refers to what you know.
          Most Atheists are honest and are also agnostic. That is, they do not believe there has been satisfactory evidence presented for the existence of a god, but do not know that one may not exist.

          You seem to not have a civil bone in your body and to get some sort of kick out of personal attacks based on misrepresentation, diversion, and blatant lies. Your character is a horrible representation of who Christians are, and do them a terrible disservice with your nonsensical outbursts and complete lack of humility. Are you perhaps supposed to be on some sort of medication?

          Bart Ehrman Blog - his own words on the subject.
          Not being a member you will only see the introduction.
          I will not post the rest of his article for that reason, but he just goes on to talk about those who hold the same positions and the differences.

          https://ehrmanblog.org/agnostic-or-atheist-for-members/

          Agnostic or Atheist?

          I apparently threw a few people for a loop yesterday when I referred to myself as an atheist. Several readers responded, wanting to know if I had changed my views, since I have publicly stated that I am an agnostic.

          I posted on this issue a while back – possibly a long while back – but since I don’t expect everyone to read everything I’ve ever written on this blog (!), I thought maybe I should explain my views again. So – apologies to those of you who have heard this before.

          When I became an agnostic – 17 or 18 years ago? I’m not even sure any more – I thought that “agnosticism” and “atheism” were two degrees of basically the same thing. My sense is that this is what most people think. According to this idea, an agnostic is someone who says that s/he does not know whether God exists, and an atheist is someone who makes a definitive statement that God does not exist. Agnostics don’t know and atheists are sure.

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 18:29

          @EightImmortals: Seriously? It is my personal experience, and historical/theological general knowledge from research. The criticisms are widely known and some will have come up in many debates on the subject. I have relatives who are clergy, I grew up in a fundamentalist cult, and have been interested in the history since a child. Just like most atheists in the same situation, we end up knowing our bible and the history better than the christians around you. You have to considering the pressure of continuous attacks and bullying - if not you end up separated from your family, as has happened with some relatives who have not spoken to their parents for decades.

          The work of Dennis MacDonald - tho not quoted, just giving credit.

          References are;
          The New Testament
          Homer's The Odyssey and The Gospel of Mark

          Everything else has a link.

        • EightImmortals on 18/08/2018 - 18:37

          @Major Mess: Fair enough, I wont bother to refute it all referencing other scholars nor will I point out the obvious fallacies of your position. You seem to be settled in what you believe and there's no point in trying to introduce contrary facts at this point in the discussion. Besides, I don't really do 'wall of texts' if you get what I mean? FTR I was the opposite to you, I was raised as an atheist and then studied the Bible (and other theistic worldviews), the doubters and skeptics as well as the apologists and reached the conclusion that those who hold that the Bible is trustworthy made a much better case and had much better evidence than those who dismiss it.

          Though if you "grew up in a fundamentalist cult" then I totally understand where you are coming from now. All the best on your journey. :)

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 18:38

          @Major Mess: Thank you for proving my point Major Mess. That what you wrote. No sorry copy paste. "through his scholarship became an atheist". Now you proved he claimed to be an agnostic. Later make a mistake calling himself an atheist. However correct that mistake in another post. Now, why should we take your scholarship from www.mountainman.com.au/ seriously?

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 18:41

          @gto21: English is not your first language is it?

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 18:44

          @gto21: I gave you a link to Bart Ehrman himself speaking about agnostic and atheist on his own website.

          In regard to www.mountainman.com.au, there is no claim, it is simply a list of some of the artefacts. The point is that they are all available online and you like I did, can discover and verify from the originals.

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 18:46

          @Major Mess: the thing you post from part Erhman can you explain what does that mean "When I became an agnostic…"?

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 18:49

          @EightImmortals: I don't get what you mean. I have made no claim that is not well known for you to refute. The vast majority is stated by the authors of this offer and gto's previous posts.

          But the Chrestian information is not well known and if you do have information on that subject it would helpful. Are you aware of this issue, did you verify the sources? What about at least Codex Sinaiticus? Any explanation?

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 19:04

          @gto21: "the thing you post from part Erhman can you explain what does that mean "When I became an agnostic…"?

          That is Bart referring to when he first lost his faith. Bart made that post because Christians were confused thinking because he had called himself "agnostic", that he was not an atheist. So when they saw him refer to himself as an atheist, he got confused questions.

          It comes down to the fact that there are only two options, atheist or theist.
          1. If you believe in a god, you are a theist.
          2. If you are unsure, then you don't believe and are therefore atheist.
          That is all there is. Christians are atheist about all gods except their own. The same for other religions in relation to the gods of other faiths.

          Gnostic/agnostic is what you know, not what you believe. It is therefore impossible for a believer in a faith to be agnostic about their faith - because they know that their god exists.

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 19:09

          @Major Mess: Atheist, Agnostic and theist are three different things. I hope you do not confuse about this? Now let address you Ricky Gervais argument. Can you answer this question, are you a murderer? After you answer I can demonstrate how the argument you learn from comedian Ricky Gervais is a bad one.

        • EightImmortals on 18/08/2018 - 19:23

          @Major Mess: I'll try to do a proper reply tomorrow as I'm off for the night now.

          "All earlier artefacts refer to Chrestians, the followers of Jesus Chrestus(Jesus "the good")….The fact that there is no evidence of the word Christian until the 5-8th century."

          Simply not true. From wiki (yeah I know but if I get the chance I'll look up some professors for you tomorrow. :) ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian

          "The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one" The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26,[28] after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[…] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28,[29] where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."[30]"

          All of these occurred before Paul's execution around 70AD (from memory)

          "I was 23 that I first discovered the gospel contradictions"

          I've yet to find a genuine one. All claims of 'contradictions' that I have ever seen rely on 2 things. 1) That the person reading the list will not make the effort to actually look up the texts in the Bible and 2)The use of the world 'contradiction' to describe a mere difference in accounts that is usually complimentary and not contradictory. And three, it would be no big deal if a genuine one was found UNLESS you personal definition of 'inerrant' means that the Bible books were handwritten by God or personally dictated by him to the authors.

          The comparative religion myth got started in the 1800's or thereabouts and has been well and truly debunked. When the original myths and texts from Egypt and the other Eastern worldviews were made more widely available the claims similarities simply were not there OR those texts were written POST Jesus time and were therefore most likely copies of Jesus life and not the other way around as claimed.

          Codex Sinaiticus is not the Bible, as explained here.

          http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/02/oldest-known-bible-goe…

          "Codex Sinaitucs is only the earliest known complete collection of the New Testament, it's by no means the earliest manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament text. We have literally thousands of pieces of manuscripts of the New Testament and even more quotations of the the New Testament in the writings of the church fathers to compare and arrive at a very reliable text."

          Hope that helps, will check in tomorrow.

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 19:28

          @gto21: Stop supposing things. I know who Rick Gervais is, but have never "learnt" any argument from him, nor even heard one.

          My guess is you are repeating something an apologist has written to counter something he has said. I have not come across this reference.

          You are trying to apply labels to people's beliefs in general, which don't match reality. It is a theist thing, related to it being hard to accept the statement, "I don't know".

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 19:34
          -1

          @Major Mess: He probably was the one who came up with the argument. If not, he certainly made it popular. Let reverse that argument and see if its a good one. Atheists are Christians, they only believe in one less God. They should come to church. Does that sound like a good point to you? Let see if you're consistent in your Ricky Gervais Argument. When we turn the table.

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 20:21

          @EightImmortals: I am aware of the Wikipedia article which references a generic modern translation of the bible. It does not even say which late source it is quoting.
          As I stated the word Christian appears in Codex Alexandrinus(earliest guesstimate is 450CE) and later editions.
          It does not appear in earlier texts.

          "Codex Sinaiticus is not the Bible, as explained here"
          It doesn't matter. It is the earliest mostly complete copy we have.
          In the three places where "Christian" appears in our current translations, "Chrestian" appears in it.
          The argument given in that article is contrary to the understanding of believing scholars, and has nothing to do with the issue I raise, or contest it.

          The issue has been caused by scholars automatically translating the word to Christian. Along with how few, and the long period of time over which these artefacts were discovered and their geographic separation. It is only now with internet access that it can be discovered and all examples are available to reference together.

          This is how I discovered Chrestians.

          I had come across an old archaeology book on Google books, that had a photo on the right with a caption giving a translation. The word that caught my attention was Chrestians, but on the left in the text it had been interpreted as Christian. I huffed and thought it not very constructive, then promptly forgot about it.

          Sometime later I happened to be reading the well known Suetonius passage that refers to Claudius, "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." I have heard apologists claim the name and others state it is an unknown character. Remembering the earlier google books result I looked into it further. Google was making it hard by forcing my "Chrestian to Christian", but I started getting some results.

          I had recently read Justin Martyr. Considering Chrest means good(useful etc) I was reminded of his apologetics over the name of his faith. "The good", may have been what the people were complaining about. It certainly suits the context, whereas "Christ" is odd.

          I then found the website with the list I have linked. This site is also the work of another Australian, and I have only found one other site that looks into the issue. It has some other items such as early Chrestian graffiti in Rome that only shows two crosses at the crucifixion. - This would suit the Jesus role in that the Jewish ceremony he replaces originally involved only two animals - one the scapegoat, from where we get the term.

        • EightImmortals on 18/08/2018 - 21:45

          @Major Mess:

          "As I stated the word Christian appears in Codex Alexandrinus…"

          So are you simply referring to the english word 'Christian' here? Otherwise I don't see your point.

          "The argument given in that article is contrary to the understanding of believing scholars,…"

          So your scholars are better than the other scholars? What is the actual Greek word being translated? And you do know his name wasn't 'Jesus' don't you?

          ""The good", may have been what the people were complaining about. It certainly suits the context, whereas "Christ" is odd."

          Again, I do not understand your argument on this point. "Christ" is the literal Greek translation for the Jewish "Messiah" and means "the annointed one". More on 'Chrestus' http://www.truthbeknown.com/suetoniuschresto.html

          "This would suit the Jesus role in that the Jewish ceremony he replaces originally involved only two animals - one the scapegoat, from where we get the term."

          There are many Christ types in the OT and in the Jewish temple worship system, and there are many temple sacrifces and ceremonies that were fulfilled by Jesus (I'll try and find a link as it is quite fascinating) the scapegoat is but one of them. Again, I don't understand your point?

          Cheers :)

      • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 18:54

        "I was almost convinced that you knew what you were talking about until you made that claim. It is BTW totally false and I'm not aware of any serious scholars who actually argue that Jesus didn't exist. All of the arguments seem to be about whether the accounts are accurate or not and people can study that on their own if they're interested. Nevertheless every 10 years or so someone pops up and claims that Jesus didn't exist and that we have to ignore the eyewitness accounts presented in the Gospels for 'reasons' and that the extra-Biblical sources that mention Jesus were all faked by mad monks later in history yada yada. None of which is true"

        "Could you prove that Jesus existed without using the Bible?" See the words, "without using the bible"? While the biblical accounts are worthless due to a lack of credibility, that is not related to their claim.

        Can you give perhaps even one?

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 19:02

          Your favorite scholar Bart Erhman the agnostic believe we have enough evidence that Jesus existed, is that enough for you? Or your favorite scholar is suddenly not good enough now?

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 19:15

          @gto21: "Your favorite scholar Bart Erhman the agnostic believe Jesus existed, is that enough for you? Or your favorite scholar is suddenly not good enough now?"

          But he is still "agnostic" about Jesus existing. That is he does not know, but to him it is more probable.

          He has done great work and is a good reference for that work used by theists and non alike. But he is not aware of certain evidence and has a certain audience, and is employed by orthodox christians. He has limited time. He does his best to not cause huge waves, and simply asks that people have a better look at why they believe what they believe. A person's belief is their own, but because it affects their actions, it affects other people. eg Same sex marriage and voting etc.

          I am agnostic about Jesus as well. I don't know. But the evidence raises more questions about any orthodox view presented by the fourth century Nicean christianity, which is the form most christians take today. All serious non-christian scholars are agnostic. Even Richard Carrier will state he doesn't know about Jesus.

          However, when it comes to a specific god, such as Yaweh/El, I and a lot of others are not agnostic, and due to the evidence know that god does not exist. That does not mean I, or they "know" a god can't exist. It is the same position as with Christians who don't believe in the muslim or hindu gods.

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 19:24

          @Major Mess: Bart Erhman believe Jesus is a historical figure. This has no implication on him being an agnostic. You even have atheist who recognized, Jesus was a historical figure. Muhammad was very likely a historical figure. I think we have more evidence Muhammad existed than arguments against. But that does not mean I become a Muslim because of that. Same for Bart Erhman.

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 19:34

          @gto21: Exactly. But because the evidence is not definite, and there is evidence against, it can't be 100% known. So the position becomes agnostic.

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 19:38

          @Major Mess: I just told you even atheists believe Jesus was a historical figure. Bart is agnostic because he can't understand the problem of evil and suffering. Not because he is "not sure" Jesus existed. I believe Muhammad existed. That does not make me an agnostic or a Muslim. Maybe Buddha even existed that does not make me an agnostic.

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 20:38

          @gto21: I was referring to Jesus in the last reply. The belief in gods are seperate.
          Bart is technically agnostic about Jesus. His believes it more probable that a man existed(not a divine being), but has also said he may not have. Just like an atheist can say your god does not exist, but a god may.

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 20:45

          @Major Mess: believe Jesus was a historical figure or not still does not make you an agnostic. You have Unitarian who believes Jesus existed but don't believe he was divine. That does not make them Agnostic. Bart tells you why he is an agnostic because he doesn't understand the problem of evil and suffering not as you claim. You just want to argue, and misrepresent Bart instead of accepting you're wrong.

        • Major Mess on 18/08/2018 - 21:08

          @gto21: You still miss the point completely.

          Agnostic does not only have to refer "knowing" a god exists.

          You can tell me that Kentucky Fried Chicken's secret herbs and spices contains paprika. I don't know if it does(but certainly could). So I am agnostic in regard to KFC using paprika. I simply don't know what the herbs and spices are. Even if I had an idea of what is in the spice mix, I don't know, and am agnostic about it.

          Edit: I may think it probable that certain spices are in it, but because I don't know for sure, it makes me agnostic.

        • gto21 on 18/08/2018 - 21:15

          @Major Mess: This is what Bart mean by agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. He tells you why he is an agnostic, I don't know why you keep arguing on this when you're clearly wrong. Nothing to do with KFC or Jesus being a historical figure. lol Never mind, I leave this conversation, not worth my time.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2018 - 11:10
    +2

    Suggest read Buddhism.

    As I recall Immanuel Kant writing on surviving religions said: All surviving religions are basically evil, with the possible exception of Buddhism.

    Stick with the winners ;-)

    • EightImmortals on 15/08/2018 - 11:25

      And why did he say that about Buddhism?
      Why should we heed what Kant said? (Wasn't he a real pissant that was very rarely able? :) )
      Why not Hinduism? That was the source of Buddhism and has been around much longer. Don't get me wrong, I like Buddhism and it's clear to me that the Bhudda (also a historical figure)saw the same 'spiritual landscape' that Jesus did. I just don't see it as more accurate reflection of the world than what Jesus presented.

      • lostn on 15/08/2018 - 11:54

        I just don't see it as more accurate reflection of the world than what Jesus presented.

        neither are accurate reflections of the world.

        I'm cool with people looking into 'historical' jesus, but if that historical jesus included miracles like resurrection, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc, I'm going to need a little bit more reference sources than that one book that happens to be riddled with contradictory accounts.

        If he resurrected in front of tons of people, I'd expect to see tons of written accounts of it. If they were iliterate, they'd learn to write, just because of how important this is. The guy who is the most important person who ever lived and who will ever live just came back to life. Write this down. But not even the romans who executed him have any records of him. That's suss.

        Ever extra-biblical account of him has been debunked as either insufficient or forgery. Not by skeptics but by neutral scholars (non fundamentalists or literalists). People who accept him as a historic figure but not a miracle worker.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2018 - 11:21
    +5

    I feel I got to neg this post.
    OP has posted three christian posts in 5 days. The last two got very many negs, so he does it again 3 days later?
    I think hateful religions are dying worldwide, and their propaganda isn't really a bargain IMO.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join