DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Pat Mustard]

I linked a source {https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/guest-commentary/was-jesus-a-historical-figure.html}.  I also provided one for Exodus.

Before I finish the first sentence of your "source" it shows itself to be worse than shit (at least you can use shit as fertiliser), it calls Will Durant early on "non-christian". Nothing in his writing or his life suggests that he ever abandoned christianity. Secondly they are using a source from 1944, back in a period when "biblical history" was still dominated by religious ministers and the bible was taken as unquestioned truth. Archaeology since then has completely destroyed the myth of biblical historicity such that no reliable or well informed historian accepts any of the stories contained therein without significant corroborating evidence.

Then it mentions the bible as evidence. As I said above, the bible is not evidence it is the claim. If all we had of Caesar were his Gallic Wars there would be huge historical debate over his existence with many (if not most) historians being rightly sceptical of his existence. But we don't just have one book on his life, we have corroborating archaeological evidence showing the book was right in many of its particulars, independent evidence from writings of contemporaries, evidence of his (near) descendants, the Julio-Claudian clan which comprised the first ruling dynasty of the Empire and so on. All that is lacking for Jesus.

Then the article goes on to call John Crossan a "sceptic of Jesus", which is a complete fabrication. Being a fellow Irishman I am aware of Crossan's work and his whole life has been spent in catholic apologetics. Far from being a sceptic, Crossan is an uncritical cheerleader for Jesus.

The next "authority" is Habermas, a man so authorative and truthful that if he told you it was raining you would be forced to stick your head out the window to make sure. He is the very definition of "liar for Jesus" and not one single thing he has ever said can be taken on its own merits. And then the article goes on to list a number of fraudulent mentions of Jesus (Tacitus as I mentioned above, of which the only mention of Jesus comes from an 11th century manuscript which has been deliberately altered and Josephus which has been acknowledged by all but the most egregious of liars, cf Habermas as being a fraud perpetrated by Eusebius because he had no actual historical records for Jesus, despite having access to significant Roman records of that period later destroyed by the churches of Rome and Constantinople) or much later figures such as Pliny writing in the 190's CE. Mara bar Serapion, far from being an acknowledger of Jesus was a pagan of whom later christian writers altered his letters to add a patina of respectability and authenticity to their budding religion.

And the list of christian writers is even worse, first of all they are all 2nd or 3rd century writers, second of all they had a vested interest in perpetuating the scam, as they were profiting from it.

And finally the salmonella cherry on this shit sundae "By first century standards, this is terrific documentation." when most of what has been documented has either been later writings by vested interests or earlier works to significantly altered to insert christianity into a period when it did not exist. What little "evidence" that remains from the piece is the bible itself which is neither historically reliable, nor a primary source that it and the apologists claim of it, nor a depiction of any real or possible series of events.

Your whole premise is built on a foundation of shit, and ready to collapse like a house of cards built by a toddler. Do not try to bullshit me again, you failure.