Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus?

[Ryantology]

Yup, just make sure you don't find any evidence of the House of David, Sodom and Gommarah, a great flood or God forbib, evidence that Yeshua may have actually existed... lol

I like you Ape, keep up the research.
.

The Shining took place in Colorado, and since Colorado is a real place, therefore Jack Torrance must have existed.

[Minimalist]

By definition, mythology IS fiction, no argument there. The problem I have is that because something is associated with a religion, people claim "myth!"...
.

Just as you do with Zeus, Osiris, Odin, Shiva, etc. I'll wager.

[Question Mark]

In fairness, yes, most other religions are lowered to the status of a mythology when they fall out of favour and a dominant religion becomes too aggressive.

[Minimalist]

It seems that Pontius Pilate existed going by the Pilate Stone.

Pilate was written about by both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. We did not need the inscription to prove his historicity. However, both Philo and Josephus describe an arrogant prick not some wishy-washy schmuck who couldn't make up his fucking mind as depicted in the fucking "gospels."

[Minimalist]

The Pilate of Philo and Josephus....








The Pilate of the gospels.

[Confused Ape]

Pilate was written about by both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. We did not need the inscription to prove his historicity.

Pontius Pilate

Pilate and his wife arrived at Caesarea in 26. Almost immediately, troubles started: soldiers had brought statues of the emperor into Jerusalem, and almost the entire population of Jerusalem marched to Caesarea, imploring the new governor to remove the effigies. There are three reports about the incident. The oldest is written by Philo in the forties and is extremely hostile to Pilate, for reasons explained above. Philo was not present, however; he was at Alexandria, and this distance may explain some discrepancies with the other reports. These are both written by Flavius Josephus, whose Jewish War appeared in the seventies and is (partially) based on oral sources.

Jospehus was born in 37 CE. Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea from 26 CE to 36 CE. If we're supposed to accept Josephus's history books as proof of Pilate's existence without archaeological backup we'll have to do the same for Jesus and John the Baptist.

Josephus On Jesus

The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3]

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [4] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[5][1][2][6][7][8] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[9][10][11]

[Zone]

According to this book here.



The pagan gods weren't myths but were in fact a kind of demon that feed on the life energy of blood which is why all pagans performed blood sacrifice. The Oracle at Delphi was in fact a case of demonic possession by a demon called Apollyon. So that's probably a better idea for Christians than saying all the other gods were "just made up" as then you have to ask what else people decided to make up.

[Confused Ape]

The pagan gods weren't myths but were in fact a kind of demon that feed on the life energy of blood which is why all pagans performed blood sacrifice. The Oracle at Delphi was in fact a case of demonic possession by a demon called Apollyon. So that's probably a better idea for Christians than saying all the other gods were "just made up" as then you have to ask what else people decided to make up.

How do they account for the God of the Old Testament who demanded blood sacrifices?

Have just found an excuse that Christians who believe in those demons could use to say that God isn't a demon.

Why Did God Require Blood Sacrifices?

[catfish]

The pagan gods weren't myths but were in fact a kind of demon that feed on the life energy of blood which is why all pagans performed blood sacrifice. The Oracle at Delphi was in fact a case of demonic possession by a demon called Apollyon. So that's probably a better idea for Christians than saying all the other gods were "just made up" as then you have to ask what else people decided to make up.

How do they account for the God of the Old Testament who demanded blood sacrifices?

Have just found an excuse that Christians who believe in those demons could use to say that God isn't a demon.

Why Did God Require Blood Sacrifices?

According to the text, God spoke to a prophet and said that He never commanded sacrifices when He brought them out of Egypt.
There are numerous passages where God supposedly condemned sacrifices and that He was "sick of their burnt offerings".
Then there's a passage where God is supposed to have said to NOT worship Him the way the heathens do.
Blood sacrifices were only attonement for "unintentional" sins according to Jewish tradition.
Human sacrifice has always been considered an evil practice in the Bible.

Abrahams story of God asking him to kill his son was/is bullshit and I was 3 or 4 years of age was when that Bible story was first relayed to me. I've been caling Bullchit! on the Bible ever since...
.

---

If you really want to get technical about it...

The sacrifice wasn't offered by the sinner(s).
It wasn't performed according to Jewish Law.
It wasn't done on a proper altar.
It would basicaly be attonement for me accidently eating pork and not much else...
.

---

Ham sammiches, here I come!!!
.

[Confused Ape]

According to the text, God spoke to a prophet and said that He never commanded sacrifices when He brought them out of Egypt.
There are numerous passages where God supposedly condemned sacrifices and that he was "sick of their burnt offerings".
Then there's a passage where God is supposed to have said to NOT worship Him the way the heathens do.
Blood sacrifices were only attonement for "unintentional" sins according to Jewish tradition.
Human sacrifice has always been considered an evil practice in the Bible.

So God condemned human blood sacrifices then sent his son to Earth as a human so Jesus could be sacrificed to save us all. There would have been a lot of blood what with scourging and being nailed to a cross and the crown of thorns could have resulted in bleeding scratches as well. Was Jesus as a sacrifice supposed to be OK because he wasn't burnt on an altar?

Maybe Jesus, if he existed, was just executed for being a public nuisance - this would make more sense than God being against human sacrifice except where his son was concerned.