that is like the worst thing someone can say to you on gfy

damn. why did you have to ruin it for everyone!



http://www.jesuspenis.com/testament/jesus_ball_grab.jpg

Fuck off, newbie. You are such a fucking moron.

If there was a christ, and there is actual data to support that there was.... he must have been doing something right if the Jewish sanhedrin wanted him dead.

Kind of like the way the leftists of the democratic party want GWB dead.....






/me sits back and watches the thunder roll.....

There was!

I'm not your father! :1orglaugh

No there is not.

get the facts here: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com :thumbsup

jesus loves young boys

Yes just because someone truly believes something does not infact make it true..

jesus was like, hey one of you is gonna betray me. so he took a slow release painkiller from johnson and johnson, and his evil twin brother seperated at birth took off his acme plastic mustache then on the third day, he was like, hey guys im back. then he staged miracles and now we have jesus.

so if your ever in doubt, I sell fountain of youth bottled water, and i have testimonies to back it up

Please go baxck to your athiest sites and stop spewing bullshit. There are several (some direst, some indirect):

http://www.bibleviews.com/non-biblical.html

Idiots everywhere today!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh



PS: Were there any STACKED biblical figures?


inquiring minds wanna know...

Not one of them an authentic reference to Jesus.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

Try again.

:1orglaugh

You are a moron. You are so easily persuaded, aren't you. The article you cite is, to put it quite bluntly, bullshit. I will show this with one example, the first passage/reference by Josephus.

There is NO DISPUTE that this passage was tampered with by Christian scribes at some point in history and that there was some interpolation. However, there is CLEAR evidence for partial authenticity. The VAST MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS accept partial authenticity, this includes even NON-CHRISTIAN scholars. Here's one paper which does a fairly good job of explaining ALL the facts.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

The evidence for partial authenticity is quite striking. Your reference is an example of VERY POOR SCHOLARSHIP.

Any claim that an authentic non-christian reference to the historical Christ is lacking holds absolutely no water in light of the very clear and compelling evidence to the contrary.

Please! You know jack shit about this. I am familiar with the scholarship and with the languages in question. You can say that Jesus was not who he claimed to be all you want. But you CANNOT convincingly argue that he did not exist.

So what you are saying is that you have one quote that may be "partially authentic" that was written more than 60 years after Jesus' supposed death. This guy wasn't even born during Jesus' supposed lifetime. :1orglaugh

Sorry but in the real world that doesn't cut it as proof.

Not even close.

:1orglaugh

It's called PROVOCATIVE POST MARKETING. Not bad! Dark Jedi's a genius!

More like an idiot savant, but I get your point.

pffff. comedy!

BTW, the fairy tale of Jesus is meant to be allegorical.

Jesus is Lord.

Now where is my 10% ?

You are an even bigger moron that I originally thought. Josephus was a historian. Historians don't write histories based exclusively on first hand knowledge. They rely on credible sources. Like any good historian, Josephus would not have included a reference to an individual without a credible source. The second passage in Josephus, namely, the reference to James, the brother of 'the so-called Christ', is almost universally undisputed, except by delusional atheists like you.

Using your logic, we should dispute any reference that doesn't arise from first hand knowledge. That is simply ridiculous. Incidentally, the gospels are 'historical' sources too, and they DO ARISE from first hand knowledge (of their authors). The secular references simply back the gospels up.

Believe it or not, there are people who argue that Shakespeare did not actually exist. This is, however, a minority view, mainly because the preponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise. The same is true for the historical Jesus. I don't know why atheists like you can't accept the historical evidence for Christ and simply argue that he was not who he claimed to be.

Here's an article on the untenability of the so-called 'Jesus myth,' which is the myth you are attempting to defend:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html

BTW, we never finished our earlier argument regarding probability theory and the likelihood that life came into existence spontaneously (i.e., without a causal event). In that thread, you questioned my claim that the idea that life came into existence spontaneously (i.e., without a direct CAUSE) was mathematically nearly impossible.

As you recall, I mentioned that it has been argued that the probability that such an event took place is on par with the probability that a strong wind could sweep through a junkyard and randomly (or 'magically') assemble the junk therein into a working 747. My source for this claim was none other than the late Sir Fredrick Hoyle, who was not only one of the most famous scientists of the 20th century, but also AN ATHEIST.

Consider the following quote and subsequent reference:

"When Hoyle completed his project he stated that, "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to the 40 thousand naughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the entire theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence!""

http://malleyz.com/thinkaboutit/sirfredrickhoyle.shtml

your forgetting the major fact:

Jesus wasn't real.

Moly shit, are you people idiots.

You obviously haven't gotten to my posts yet. You cre delusional.

uh-huh. This is a joke, right? You've GOT to be a character.

Boneprone, is that you?

You're the one that believes in invisible men.

Sorry, who's delusional?

:1orglaugh

So you agree with Hoyle that life came from space?

:1orglaugh

Go watch the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the Bible.

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=bible

One of my favorite ones :)

:1orglaugh i didnt know people still believed in that shit

Man, are you a moron. First of all, Hoyle WAS AN ATHEIST. If life could not have possibly been spontaneously generated on Earth, and if it was not created by an intelligent being (i.e., God), the ONLY OTHER OPTION would be that it began somewhere outside the earth, perhaps on some nearby planet (this was not the view of Hoyle, BTW).

I do not subscribe to the 'Evolution From Space' theory, but it is not as irrational as you make it out to be. After all, there is some evidence that a primitive form of life began on Mars, and that it found its way to Earth via meteors.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9608/06/mars.life/

As I have pointed out, the chance that life was spontaneously generated on Earth is about as close to impossible as it is possible to get. If you accept as evidence that a primitive form of it also existed on Mars, you almost HAVE TO ACCEPT the theory that is was transmitted from one planet to another. The odds that life could have been generated spontaneously on two different planets is mind-bogglingly impossible.

BTW, I notice that you had no reply to my post regarding the evidence for the historical Jesus. A laughing smiley is NOT A SUFFICIENT counter-argument.

I am truly dumbfounded by the COMPLETE and total IGNORANCE of most of the idiots who have posted their 'opinions' in this thread. How can SO MANY PEOPLE be SO COMPLETELY DELUSIONAL.

You continue to maintain your fairytale beliefs in spite of the evidence I have cited in this thread, which makes you guilty of the exact same thing you accuse theists of doing, namely, CLINGING to your delusional beliefs despite a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary.

Why not provide counter evidence instead of making moronic statements.

This is unbelievable. I understand why most people in this forum refuse to accept the Christian God, but I find it incredible that so many of you could continue to maintain atheistic beliefs despite the overwhelming counter evidence I alluded to earlier. At a minimum, I would have expected at least SOME OF YOU to adopt deistic beliefs.

He drove the man away and stationed cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.


"Flaming sword which turned every way" guarding "the tree of life" that gives you knowledge, and if you use it enough -- even eternal life?.....

http://www.laseronics-me.com/LaserInstallation.jpg

Hmm.... lets see... what is the primitive word ancient man would have used for "Laser" again?...

Sounds like G-D had a laser security system to me.

This is a pointless exercise. Rational arguments are wasted on you people.

oh ok fine. Flaming sword it is.


http://www.ou.org/ncsy/photos/2001/washington01/mem.JPG

What is there to reply to? Your argument didn't suddenly get any stronger. You have one highly suspect passage by a Jewish historian that was written sixty years after Jesus' supposed death.

That's not good enough.

There should be dozens, but there aren't. He supposedly performed miracles and came back from the dead and he gets one, possibly fraudulent, vague refrence in a tome written sixty years after his supposed death? :1orglaugh

All I can say is that you are obviously pretty gullible. Accept that you blindly follow this faith because you need it on a psychological level. You are incapable of facing up to your own mortality.

There is more evidence for the existence of little green men from mars than there is for Jesus Christ.