Dramatic Tablet lends credence to Jesus' existence
-
I made a point before it got deleted that it's pretty much guaranteed Jesus was a real person (albeit likely wasn't called anything close to jesus) - but that most people at this time were illiterate and lacking intellect (Like people in east cleveland, detroit, chicago) - but regardless he gained quite an exponentially growing following and managed to blah blah blah.
I was more interested in the discussion after that.
Otherwise people have talked about a messiah that would come, die, rise again forever. Only Christians believe that Jesus was that guy, Islam kinda does but don't believe he was crucified, Jews are still waiting for that guy.
While I somewhat disagree with your point on the likelihood of the existence of a historical Jesus, I get what you are saying. The point I was trying to get across was that even if there was concrete archeological evidence pointing to a historical Jesus, which this tablet by no means is; that does not, by extension, validate the claim of his divinity or that the Judeo-Christian idea of God is true. Nor does the idea that comparable archeological "evidence" of Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard or Joesph Smith somehow legitimize the claims of divine providence expounded those religions.
And yeah, some of the following replies were kind of out there, like the whole "is Jesus white" thing, but it was still pretty interesting. Plus, it's always fun to show the crackpot views of some on Fox News who are adamant that both Santa AND Jesus were white.
While I somewhat disagree with your point on the likelihood of the existence of a historical Jesus, I get what you are saying. The point I was trying to get across was that even if there was concrete archeological evidence pointing to a historical Jesus, which this tablet by no means is; that does not, by extension, validate the claim of his divinity or that the Judeo-Christian idea of God is true. Nor does the idea that comparable archeological "evidence" of Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard or Joesph Smith somehow legitimize the claims of divine providence expounded those religions.
And yeah, some of the following replies were kind of out there, like the whole "is Jesus white" thing, but it was still pretty interesting. Plus, it's always fun to show the crackpot views of some on Fox News who are adamant that both Santa AND Jesus were white.
This tablet doesn't really prove anything - except that the Jews were divided on what to expect from a Messiah which is pretty much already well known, hence the reason we have Christians and Jews today.
But there's some non-christian sources of writing around that time ~2000 years ago that reference Jesus. Certainly he wasn't white, but the evidence generally suggests that there is a real person who was crucified that is the center of Christianity
The miracles, resurrection and such is obviously a different matter - but the existence alone has some evidence going for it. -
Ok Fair, let's try another example:
Are you familiar with the story of the Trojan War found in Homer's Illiad? It's the story of the 10 year war between the Trojans and Greeks. According to the religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks, the Olympian Gods like Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, Athena, etc. all took sides and participated in the war, directly influencing its outcome. The war culminated with the sack and utter destruction of the city of Troy, and the city was believed to be lost to history, only to be remembered in the stories of the war in Homer's Illiad and Odyssey.
However, in 1868, a German archeologist discovered and excavated the site of a city that had been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times in the area that locals traditionally identified with Troy. One of layers, layer VII, was identified by the archeologist as the city of Troy described by Homer, with evidence that showed that it had been destroyed in a war.
Now, since there is archeological evidence for Troy, we can, by extension, make the claim that since this is probably the Troy mentioned by Homer, and that the the Greeks believed that the Olympian Gods actively participated in its destruction, that the existence of Troy also proves the existence of the Olympians, and that Zeus is real.
Now, if that logic sounds a little far fetched to you, that is because it is. But it is of same logic that suggests that a stone tablet which mentions a nameless messiah that will be killed and resurrected in three days somehow proves that Jesus was that Messiah, and that he is of divine origin and that the Judeo-Christian God exists by extension.
Just because someone digs up some stone tablet in the holy land, or finds a destroyed city mentioned in some religious text (Troy for the Greeks, Jericho or Sodom and Gamorah for Jews and Christians, or Mecca/Medina for Muslims), that by no means somehow "prove" that the God, gods, or prophets that are attached to those artifacts are somehow divine, or even exist. It's shoddy logic to believe so.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
From my perspective history, whether it be the revolutionary civil World War 2 or ancient Jerusalem, I'm skeptical of any historical record. There's still a ton of confusion about the Kennedy assassination which was in my lifetime and on television so....
WSS
-
Ok Fair, let's try another example:
Are you familiar with the story of the Trojan War found in Homer's Illiad? It's the story of the 10 year war between the Trojans and Greeks. According to the religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks, the Olympian Gods like Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, Athena, etc. all took sides and participated in the war, directly influencing its outcome. The war culminated with the sack and utter destruction of the city of Troy, and the city was believed to be lost to history, only to be remembered in the stories of the war in Homer's Illiad and Odyssey.
However, in 1868, a German archeologist discovered and excavated the site of a city that had been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times in the area that locals traditionally identified with Troy. One of layers, layer VII, was identified by the archeologist as the city of Troy described by Homer, with evidence that showed that it had been destroyed in a war.
Now, since there is archeological evidence for Troy, we can, by extension, make the claim that since this is probably the Troy mentioned by Homer, and that the the Greeks believed that the Olympian Gods actively participated in its destruction, that the existence of Troy also proves the existence of the Olympians, and that Zeus is real.
Now, if that logic sounds a little far fetched to you, that is because it is. But it is of same logic that suggests that a stone tablet which mentions a nameless messiah that will be killed and resurrected in three days somehow proves that Jesus was that Messiah, and that he is of divine origin and that the Judeo-Christian God exists by extension.
Just because someone digs up some stone tablet in the holy land, or finds a destroyed city mentioned in some religious text (Troy for the Greeks, Jericho or Sodom and Gamorah for Jews and Christians, or Mecca/Medina for Muslims), that by no means somehow "prove" that the God, gods, or prophets that are attached to those artifacts are somehow divine, or even exist. It's shoddy logic to believe so.
Ok Fair, let's try another example:
Are you familiar with the story of the Trojan War found in Homer's Illiad? It's the story of the 10 year war between the Trojans and Greeks. According to the religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks, the Olympian Gods like Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, Athena, etc. all took sides and participated in the war, directly influencing its outcome. The war culminated with the sack and utter destruction of the city of Troy, and the city was believed to be lost to history, only to be remembered in the stories of the war in Homer's Illiad and Odyssey.
However, in 1868, a German archeologist discovered and excavated the site of a city that had been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times in the area that locals traditionally identified with Troy. One of layers, layer VII, was identified by the archeologist as the city of Troy described by Homer, with evidence that showed that it had been destroyed in a war.
Now, since there is archeological evidence for Troy, we can, by extension, make the claim that since this is probably the Troy mentioned by Homer, and that the the Greeks believed that the Olympian Gods actively participated in its destruction, that the existence of Troy also proves the existence of the Olympians, and that Zeus is real.
Now, if that logic sounds a little far fetched to you, that is because it is. But it is of same logic that suggests that a stone tablet which mentions a nameless messiah that will be killed and resurrected in three days somehow proves that Jesus was that Messiah, and that he is of divine origin and that the Judeo-Christian God exists by extension.
Just because someone digs up some stone tablet in the holy land, or finds a destroyed city mentioned in some religious text (Troy for the Greeks, Jericho or Sodom and Gamorah for Jews and Christians, or Mecca/Medina for Muslims), that by no means somehow "prove" that the God, gods, or prophets that are attached to those artifacts are somehow divine, or even exist. It's shoddy logic to believe so.
Nah I don't really care about the tablet which seems irrelevant, I was just saying there's evidence aside from the tablet that tends to agree with Jesus being a real person that lived around the time the bible says he did.
The thread title "lends Credence to Jesus' existence" is what I mean, there's other evidence out there that would tend to confirm Jesus existed.
I don't really understand the relevance of the tablet, because the biggest revelation is that some of the Jews were "expecting a suffering Messiah" - I sort of thought that was common knowledge nowadays and the biggest thing modern-day Jews and modern-day Christians are divided on.
-
^ yes I know, Ive heard that before too, far be it from me to get in the way of shapeshifting and ineuendo of the D
but really -what is so easily discarded by the skeptic here in America by the discoveries found in Israel,
are taken quite seriously by those who are seeking tangible proof to written ancient transcripts.
And they are mostly the Jews
but dont worry if you cant follow in the vain of scientific discovery to prove a biblical worldview
Well, since I am a scientist myself (B.A in Biology, and getting ready to peruse my Master's), I am quite familiar with scientific discoveries. But more importantly, I'm am also quite familiar with the scientific method of inquiry, which states something akin to: make a hypothesis, test it, and to follow the facts and evidence wherever they lead you, even if it is against you're hypothesis.But dont worry if you cant follow in the vain of scientific discovery to prove a biblical worldview
From the what I read in the article Cal posted, the archeologist is doing the opposite. He already believes that Jesus existed and that he is the Messiah, and he's trying to fit the narrative from some vague pseudo-prophetic scribblings on a tablet found in the holy land, which doesn't even mention Jesus by name, to somehow "prove" that Jesus is real. That isn't science, nor is it thinking scientifically. It is poor logical reasoning.
-
NO, it's trolling. I'll explain,
in particular, with Jblue, the title I posted, says "lends credence".
Now, go look up those words and respond accordingly.
No, you're a lib, you won't. The article mentions the age old criticism about Jesus...
and
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credence
"b : credibility 1 <lends credence to the theory>"
I never said "proof" anything. But it lends itself to establishing, perhaps, credibility to some folks
that otherwise saw no evidence at all. And complaining that the tablet didn't SAY JESUS....
what other religious figure in history sacrificed himself, arose again, to die for our sins ?
so, the trolling part of Jblu's thread, was strawman putting issues where there were none, so as to
have a smartass, contrary reply. Or, Jblu has a learning disability, as in reading comprehension -
which is tough, and I am not making fun of him about that. But, I believe it was a matter of trolling.
Lending some validity, to Jesus's existence and deity, is not absolute proof of anything.
It's a significant, blockbuster ...small part of a proof, with all the rest of the proof missing.
-
"The author said that the discovery, which has attracted attention inside biblical and archaeological circles, is notable due to the fact that it “basically shows … that there were Jews in Jesus’ time who were expecting a suffering messiah.”
and what it does prove, if legit, right?... it proves that those scholars who said Jesus and the story was dreamed up after
the fact.... were totally wrong.
"Critics have spent a century questioning the New Testament narrative, Hutchinson said, based on the claim that the story surrounding Jesus’ divinity and the reason for his crucifixion were conjured up after the fact — something that he believes the tablet dismisses."
-
Ok Fair, let's try another example:
Are you familiar with the story of the Trojan War found in Homer's Illiad? It's the story of the 10 year war between the Trojans and Greeks. According to the religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks, the Olympian Gods like Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, Athena, etc. all took sides and participated in the war, directly influencing its outcome. The war culminated with the sack and utter destruction of the city of Troy, and the city was believed to be lost to history, only to be remembered in the stories of the war in Homer's Illiad and Odyssey.
However, in 1868, a German archeologist discovered and excavated the site of a city that had been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times in the area that locals traditionally identified with Troy. One of layers, layer VII, was identified by the archeologist as the city of Troy described by Homer, with evidence that showed that it had been destroyed in a war.
Now, since there is archeological evidence for Troy, we can, by extension, make the claim that since this is probably the Troy mentioned by Homer, and that the the Greeks believed that the Olympian Gods actively participated in its destruction, that the existence of Troy also proves the existence of the Olympians, and that Zeus is real.
Now, if that logic sounds a little far fetched to you, that is because it is. But it is of same logic that suggests that a stone tablet which mentions a nameless messiah that will be killed and resurrected in three days somehow proves that Jesus was that Messiah, and that he is of divine origin and that the Judeo-Christian God exists by extension.
Just because someone digs up some stone tablet in the holy land, or finds a destroyed city mentioned in some religious text (Troy for the Greeks, Jericho or Sodom and Gamorah for Jews and Christians, or Mecca/Medina for Muslims), that by no means somehow "prove" that the God, gods, or prophets that are attached to those artifacts are somehow divine, or even exist. It's shoddy logic to believe so.
Nah I don't really care about the tablet which seems irrelevant, I was just saying there's evidence aside from the tablet that tends to agree with Jesus being a real person that lived around the time the bible says he did.
The thread title "lends Credence to Jesus' existence" is what I mean, there's other evidence out there that would tend to confirm Jesus existed.
I don't really understand the relevance of the tablet, because the biggest revelation is that some of the Jews were "expecting a suffering Messiah" - I sort of thought that was common knowledge nowadays and the biggest thing modern-day Jews and modern-day Christians are divided on.
Nah I don't really care about the tablet which seems irrelevant, I was just saying there's evidence aside from the tablet that tends to agree with Jesus being a real person that lived around the time the bible says he did.
The thread title "lends Credence to Jesus' existence" is what I mean, there's other evidence out there that would tend to confirm Jesus existed.
I don't really understand the relevance of the tablet, because the biggest revelation is that some of the Jews were "expecting a suffering Messiah" - I sort of thought that was common knowledge nowadays and the biggest thing modern-day Jews and modern-day Christians are divided on.
I think what the OP was suggesting by the title of his article is that some people in the biblical study field think that the vague mentioning of a nameless, suffering Messiah is referring to the biblical idea of Jesus as a messiah sent to suffer for people's sins, and that this tablet constitutes as evidence for not just the historical existence of Jesus, but as the existence of Jesus in a biblical sense, which is to say, a Jesus of divine origin. From the article Cal first posted:
An author and Bible expert who has spent a great deal of time analyzing recent archaeological discoveries said that he has been blown away by an ancient tablet that was discovered back in 2000 one that has caused an earthquake in the biblical studies field.
The one [find] that really blew me away was the Gabriel Revelation a first century stone tablet that was discovered around the year 2000 on the other side of the Jordan River, author Robert J. Hutchinson toldThe Church Boys podcast.
"Hutchinson, who describes this find among many others in his new book, Searching for Jesus: New Discoveries in the Quest for Jesus of Nazareth and How They Confirm the Gospel Accounts,...
-
Nah I don't really care about the tablet which seems irrelevant, I was just saying there's evidence aside from the tablet that tends to agree with Jesus being a real person that lived around the time the bible says he did.
The thread title "lends Credence to Jesus' existence" is what I mean, there's other evidence out there that would tend to confirm Jesus existed.
I don't really understand the relevance of the tablet, because the biggest revelation is that some of the Jews were "expecting a suffering Messiah" - I sort of thought that was common knowledge nowadays and the biggest thing modern-day Jews and modern-day Christians are divided on.
I think what the OP was suggesting by the title of his article is that some people in the biblical study field think that the vague mentioning of a nameless, suffering Messiah is referring to the biblical idea of Jesus as a messiah sent to suffer for people's sins, and that this tablet constitutes as evidence for not just the historical existence of Jesus, but as the existence of Jesus in a biblical sense, which is to say, a Jesus of divine origin. From the article Cal first posted:
An author and Bible expert who has spent a great deal of time analyzing recent archaeological discoveries said that he has been blown away by an ancient tablet that was discovered back in 2000 one that has caused an earthquake in the biblical studies field.
The one [find] that really blew me away was the Gabriel Revelation a first century stone tablet that was discovered around the year 2000 on the other side of the Jordan River, author Robert J. Hutchinson toldThe Church Boys podcast.
"Hutchinson, who describes this find among many others in his new book, Searching for Jesus: New Discoveries in the Quest for Jesus of Nazareth and How They Confirm the Gospel Accounts,...
I think what the OP was suggesting by the title of his article is that some people in the biblical study field think that the vague mentioning of a nameless, suffering Messiah is referring to the biblical idea of Jesus as a messiah sent to suffer for people's sins, and that this tablet constitutes as evidence for not just the historical existence of Jesus, but as the existence of Jesus in a biblical sense, which is to say, a Jesus of divine origin. From the article Cal first posted:
An author and Bible expert who has spent a great deal of time analyzing recent archaeological discoveries said that he has been blown away by an ancient tablet that was discovered back in 2000 one that has caused an earthquake in the biblical studies field.
The one [find] that really blew me away was the Gabriel Revelation a first century stone tablet that was discovered around the year 2000 on the other side of the Jordan River, author Robert J. Hutchinson toldThe Church Boys podcast.
"Hutchinson, who describes this find among many others in his new book, Searching for Jesus: New Discoveries in the Quest for Jesus of Nazareth and How They Confirm the Gospel Accounts,...
What a fucking punk you are.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
I made a point before it got deleted that it's pretty much guaranteed Jesus was a real person (albeit likely wasn't called anything close to jesus) - but that most people at this time were illiterate and lacking intellect (Like people in east cleveland, detroit, chicago) - but regardless he gained quite an exponentially growing following and managed to blah blah blah.
I was more interested in the discussion after that.
Otherwise people have talked about a messiah that would come, die, rise again forever. Only Christians believe that Jesus was that guy, Islam kinda does but don't believe he was crucified, Jews are still waiting for that guy.
While I somewhat disagree with your point on the likelihood of the existence of a historical Jesus, I get what you are saying. The point I was trying to get across was that even if there was concrete archeological evidence pointing to a historical Jesus, which this tablet by no means is; that does not, by extension, validate the claim of his divinity or that the Judeo-Christian idea of God is true. Nor does the idea that comparable archeological "evidence" of Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard or Joesph Smith somehow legitimize the claims of divine providence expounded those religions.
And yeah, some of the following replies were kind of out there, like the whole "is Jesus white" thing, but it was still pretty interesting. Plus, it's always fun to show the crackpot views of some on Fox News who are adamant that both Santa AND Jesus were white.
While I somewhat disagree with your point on the likelihood of the existence of a historical Jesus, I get what you are saying. The point I was trying to get across was that even if there was concrete archeological evidence pointing to a historical Jesus, which this tablet by no means is; that does not, by extension, validate the claim of his divinity or that the Judeo-Christian idea of God is true. Nor does the idea that comparable archeological "evidence" of Mohammed, L. Ron Hubbard or Joesph Smith somehow legitimize the claims of divine providence expounded those religions.
And yeah, some of the following replies were kind of out there, like the whole "is Jesus white" thing, but it was still pretty interesting. Plus, it's always fun to show the crackpot views of some on Fox News who are adamant that both Santa AND Jesus were white.
If there were? The Dead sea scrolls are a pretty huge find - and its texts of Isaiah pointing to a suffering Messiah
-
Well, since I am a scientist myself (B.A in Biology, and getting ready to peruse my Master's), I am quite familiar with scientific discoveries. But more importantly, I'm am also quite familiar with the scientific method of inquiry, which states something akin to: make a hypothesis, test it, and to follow the facts and evidence wherever they lead you, even if it is against you're hypothesis.But dont worry if you cant follow in the vain of scientific discovery to prove a biblical worldview
From the what I read in the article Cal posted, the archeologist is doing the opposite. He already believes that Jesus existed and that he is the Messiah, and he's trying to fit the narrative from some vague pseudo-prophetic scribblings on a tablet found in the holy land, which doesn't even mention Jesus by name, to somehow "prove" that Jesus is real. That isn't science, nor is it thinking scientifically. It is poor logical reasoning.
Well, since I am a scientist myself (B.A in Biology, and getting ready to peruse my Master's), I am quite familiar with scientific discoveries. But more importantly, I'm am also quite familiar with the scientific method of inquiry, which states something akin to: make a hypothesis, test it, and to follow the facts and evidence wherever they lead you, even if it is against you're hypothesis.
From the what I read in the article Cal posted, the archeologist is doing the opposite. He already believes that Jesus existed and that he is the Messiah, and he's trying to fit the narrative from some vague pseudo-prophetic scribblings on a tablet found in the holy land, which doesn't even mention Jesus by name, to somehow "prove" that Jesus is real. That isn't science, nor is it thinking scientifically. It is poor logical reasoning.
especially when ones name is Jesus apparently?
-
Hutchinson, who describes this find among many others in his new book, “Searching for Jesus: New Discoveries in the Quest for Jesus of Nazareth — and How They Confirm the Gospel Accounts,” said that the tablet, which is dated to the first century B.C., is written in Hebrew and mentions the angel Gabriel.[it] speaks about … a messiah who would suffer, die and perhaps even rise again. This has just been kind of an earthquake,” Hutchinson said. “The implications of it haven’t really filtered down to ordinary scholars, and seminaries and so on — and even, of course, into the media.”
Listen to him explain below (starts at the 38:00 mark):
The author said that the discovery, which has attracted attention inside biblical and archaeological circles, is notable due to the fact that it “basically shows … that there were Jews in Jesus’ time who were expecting a suffering messiah.”
Critics have spent a century questioning the New Testament narrative, Hutchinson said, based on the claim that the story surrounding Jesus’ divinity and the reason for his crucifixion were conjured up after the fact — something that he believes the tablet dismisses.
Those opposed to the narrative in the gospels said that the Jews were expecting a conquering hero who would reestablish the Davidic kingdom and not a savior who would suffer, die and rise again, the author maintains.
“This theme of a suffering messiah wasn’t just made up by the Christian community as an apologetic device after the fact to explain the scandal that Jesus was crucified,” he said. “For literally a century scholars have said that. It was one of the pillars for questioning the reliability of the New Testament.”
-
NO, it's trolling. I'll explain,
in particular, with Jblue, the title I posted, says "lends credence".
Now, go look up those words and respond accordingly.
No, you're a lib, you won't. The article mentions the age old criticism about Jesus...
and
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credence
"b : credibility 1 <lends credence to the theory>"
I never said "proof" anything. But it lends itself to establishing, perhaps, credibility to some folks
that otherwise saw no evidence at all. And complaining that the tablet didn't SAY JESUS....
what other religious figure in history sacrificed himself, arose again, to die for our sins ?
so, the trolling part of Jblu's thread, was strawman putting issues where there were none, so as to
have a smartass, contrary reply. Or, Jblu has a learning disability, as in reading comprehension -
which is tough, and I am not making fun of him about that. But, I believe it was a matter of trolling.
Lending some validity, to Jesus's existence and deity, is not absolute proof of anything.
It's a significant, blockbuster ...small part of a proof, with all the rest of the proof missing.
And now you're resorting to calling me mentally handicapped or having a learning disability Cal? Really? I guess my critique must've really offended your apparently delicate sensibilities in order for you to blatenly slander me. How very DieHard-ish of you....what other religious figure in history sacrificed himself, arose again, to die for our sins ?
Mithra: an ancient Zoroastrian deity, predating Jesus by roughly two and a half thousand years. Stories and miracles attributed to Mitra include:
- being born on December 25 to the virgin Anahita, wrapped in swaddling clothes, and being placed into a manger attended to by shepherds;
- had 12 disciples, and was considered a great teacher who performed miracles, had his own form of a Eucharist/Lord's Supper, and performed baptisms;
- sacrificed himself for world peace, and was resurrected after three days, later ascending to heaven.
- identified with many euphemisms, including "the messiah", "the redeemer", "the savior", "the good Shepard", "the way, the truth, and the light",
- considered to be omniscient
- had a sacred "Lord's Day" - Sunday
- known as both a "Lion" and a "Lamb" http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
The Egyptian Gods Horus and Osiris, the Hindu God Krishna, and the Buddha all have very similar aspects to the Jesus story, and predate it by many centuries. It is believed by many legitimate scholars that many of the stories of Jesus were simply retellings of far older and more established mythologies by early Christians in an attempt to legitimize their own religion
-
I think what the OP was suggesting by the title of his article is that some people in the biblical study field think that the vague mentioning of a nameless, suffering Messiah is referring to the biblical idea of Jesus as a messiah sent to suffer for people's sins, and that this tablet constitutes as evidence for not just the historical existence of Jesus, but as the existence of Jesus in a biblical sense, which is to say, a Jesus of divine origin. From the article Cal first posted:
An author and Bible expert who has spent a great deal of time analyzing recent archaeological discoveries said that he has been blown away by an ancient tablet that was discovered back in 2000 one that has caused an earthquake in the biblical studies field.
The one [find] that really blew me away was the Gabriel Revelation a first century stone tablet that was discovered around the year 2000 on the other side of the Jordan River, author Robert J. Hutchinson toldThe Church Boys podcast.
"Hutchinson, who describes this find among many others in his new book, Searching for Jesus: New Discoveries in the Quest for Jesus of Nazareth and How They Confirm the Gospel Accounts,...
What a fucking punk you are.
What a fucking punk you are.
And what an insolent and painfully boring dullard you are; you are either unwilling or incapable of engaging anyone in a rational debate, so you try to hide your lack of mental fortitude between crude insults. Tsk tsk.
-
What a fucking punk you are.
And what an insolent and painfully boring dullard you are; you are either unwilling or incapable of engaging anyone in a rational debate, so you try to hide your lack of mental fortitude between crude insults. Tsk tsk.
-
even if it is against you're hypothesis. Jblows**********************************************************A. It's "your". "...your hypothesis" "you're" is a contraction of "you are"as in "you are being an idiot, constantly making points for the articlethat weren't made, so you can dispute them.B. Stick that in your "scientific method"
-
Well, Jblu, I was observing your idea that it is okay to put points in your posts that
you say you got from the article, but is not in the article.
I simply gave you a few options to help explain why you do that.
Again, the monumental message is, it, if valid and dated correctly, completely negates
the critics who have been claiming that the stories about Jesus were made up after,
in some kind of "cya", or whatever.
It does prove them wrong to have been claiming that. Nobody anywhere is claiming it proves Jesus
existed and was the Son of God. Nobody.
Interesting - you claim to be a scientist, and know the scientific method...just like woodypeckerhead.
And you both misuse words. Amazing.
-
Fuck science. Jesus #1
-
It helps show a similar story existed before the events of the Bible. It could very easily just mean the authors of the bible already had some folk stories they could base their stories on
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
science this, woodypeckerhead:'
'https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login