Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

In the beginning god said, "Let there be light!"

And he waited...

And waited...

And waited.


Then he realised he had put fuel in the generator and was really embarrassed.

at least you are smart enough to know that not all light is generated from the sun. most of your peers can't fathom how light was created day one but the sun not till day 4... even if God didn't use a generator you still can understand how light can be made without the sun. good for you!

---

There was no trial (of Jesus). Galilean wandering peasant preachers were never brought in front of Roman aristocrats. They did not involve themselves with local religious squabbles. Jerusalem was an occupied city. In the Pax Romana, trouble-makers in occupied cities were routinely executed with no trial, per "standing-order". The notion that somehow anyone "recognized" someone as *the Son of God* is utterly preposterous. First of all the Romans didn't buy that Yahweh was a god, so obviously they couldn't. For Jews, being called a "son of God" was a general honorific title, given to many men ... righteous men, politicians, generals, public heroes ... etc. It never meant *the* son of god ... in terms of the specialized nonsense that Christians hijacked the term to mean. It's not what Jews meant by it. Claiming equality with Yahweh was not something a Jew would even recognize. The Christian story was totally invented ... and falls totally apart under scrutiny.

then there was no pilate, there was no roman occupation there was no ceasar and there was no rome... if you use the same measure you use with christ meaning discount all internally religious or roman documents describing these things and only leaving passers by and historians to speak. even then Jesus as a historical figure is more effective represented by these literary sources than 90% of any of the men in his day! to deny Christ based on real world evidence is to dismiss 90% of our collective knowledge of that time period because again there is simply more written about Christ by non affiliated sources than 90% of anyone and everything even cities and kingdoms..
https://www.quora.com/The-Roman-Empire-a...l-of-Jesus

You people do not understand how evidence works in a historical context... if something with a titive source can be believed with little to no backing then something with larger and more numerous vetted source material must be believed before something with less pedigree. Jesus and everything written about him from that time period trumps everything else. just sort of caesar. and even then if you tie in what most of you would discard as religious works (meaning anything but a passing mention) Jesus trumps casar in known historical manuscripts of the same period.

As the article I posted mentions.. yours is an old and often used argument that has you over look much of recorded history. you are either ignorant of what is there or in denial. but hey your rebuttal was spelled correctly, which for you and yours is all that matters as fact and truth mean almost nothing to you. only that your words sound and look good..

---

There was no trial (of Jesus). Galilean wandering peasant preachers were never brought in front of Roman aristocrats. They did not involve themselves with local religious squabbles. Jerusalem was an occupied city. In the Pax Romana, trouble-makers in occupied cities were routinely executed with no trial, per "standing-order". The notion that somehow anyone "recognized" someone as *the Son of God* is utterly preposterous. First of all the Romans didn't buy that Yahweh was a god, so obviously they couldn't. For Jews, being called a "son of God" was a general honorific title, given to many men ... righteous men, politicians, generals, public heroes ... etc. It never meant *the* son of god ... in terms of the specialized nonsense that Christians hijacked the term to mean. It's not what Jews meant by it. Claiming equality with Yahweh was not something a Jew would even recognize. The Christian story was totally invented ... and falls totally apart under scrutiny.

source material please

---

So we're back to 'copies of copies' corroborate the claims?


lol

that's what these noobs do.. they cut and paste works of others... so I figure they know I am not reading or watching their videos so I will simply do the same.. just cut and paste the work of someone who has soundly refuted their objects ad nauseum..

---

There is no universally accepted non-Christian reference (statements by believers are not evidence) to an historical Jesus, (none) and many reasons to doubt his historicity. Comparing Caesar (who is a known secular human who is referenced in countless Roman civil documents, INCLUDING the works HE HIMSELF wrote, to a wandering preacher who is the object of faith, (never mentioned by Pontius Pilate, who Peter in Acts has to explain to the Jews who he was and what they did ... they didn't even know) is typical Christian dishonesty. The "passion" is made up. Never once in all of history, was the Sanhedrin called into session on Passover weekend.

There are no original documents of the NT.

So again I as a believer in God can be an atheist according to what you claim atheism is or is not?!?!?