Ask a atheist.

[dyresand]

There has been hundreds and possibly thousands of jesus like figures that were noted down in mythology your god boy being one of them.
god boy isn't special you guys made him special using special pleading.

Atheist Tim O'Neill writes:

"[There are] masses of evidence that the first followers of the Jesus sect were devout Jews—a group for whom the idea of adopting anything "pagan" would have been utterly horrific.  These were people who cut their hair short because long hair was associated with pagan, Hellenistic culture or who shunned gymnasia and theaters because of their association with pagan culture.  All the evidence actually shows that the earliest Jesus sect went through a tumultuous period in its first years trying to accommodate non-Jews into their devoutly Jewish group.  To claim that these people would merrily adopt myths of Horus and Attis and Dionysius and then amalgamate them into a story about a pagan/Jewish hybrid Messiah (who didn't exist) and then turn around and forget he didn't exist and claim he did and that he did so just a few decades earlier is clearly a nonsense hypothesis."

For one if jesus had existed a historical one there would have been more evidence

O'Neill disagrees:

"Our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous—they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.  Worse still, the more obscure and humble in origin the person is, the less likely that there will be any documentation about them or even a fleeting reference to them at all.

"For example, few people in the ancient world were as prominent, influential, significant and famous as the Carthaginian general Hannibal.  He came close to crushing the Roman Republic, was one of the greatest generals of all time and was famed throughout the ancient world for centuries after his death down to today.  Yet how many contemporary mentions of Hannibal do we have?  Zero.  We have none.  So if someone as famous and significant as Hannibal has no surviving contemporary references to him in our sources, does it really make sense to base an argument about the existence or non-existence of a Galilean peasant preacher on the lack of contemporary references to him?  Clearly it does not.

"So while this seems like a good argument, a better knowledge of the ancient world and the nature of our evidence and sources shows that it's actually extremely weak."

and the face being he would have died a heretic.

Um...that IS why the Jews killed him...for blasphemy.

Matthew 26:63-66
63 But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy.[m] 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”

The fact being there is no evidence outside of the bible to actually proved that someone name jesus or jeshua to have existed.

O'Neill shows your error:

If we are simply noting the existence of Jesus as a human Jewish preacher, we are not required to produce more mentions of him than we would expect of comparable figures.  And what we find is that we have about as much evidence for his existence (outside any Christian writings) as we have for other Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants of the time.  The two non-Christian writers who mention him as a historical person are Josephus and Tacitus.

The other thing mary and a virgin birth could never happen.

An all-powerful God can do anything that is not a logical contradiction. If He can make the universe out of nothing, he can make a male sperm and place it in the womb of a virgin.

The other things being you would have to explain i mean really explain how magic
works because that is basis of the bible magic. You really have to prove that before you can prove a god, jesus, or even events in the bible happened. Also not to 
mention history already disproves the things happening so pretty much you gotta throw those passages away.  

You haven't addressed my question. Here it is again:

Why do you, dyresand, say that Jesus never existed when noted scholars such as Bart Ehrman and historian Tim O'Neill, who are also atheists, have explained how we can know that he did exist?

Thanks.

Tim O'Neill has been debunked already

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/...-show.html

Take it with a grain no a bottle of salt that the bible is just all metaphor and not something to take literal. You believe in god fine you believe in god because
a religion gives you a specific version with not historical evidence no fine. 

[Whateverist]

Well it is pretty head-up-your-ass obtuse.

[Longhorn]

If I were just talking to myself, then you and Chuck would not have already reacted to my new sig.

Theist - 1
Atheist - 0

ooooh buurrrrn!!

lol Randy, I swear sometimes you sound like a poe

[robvalue]

I just won two arguments when you weren't looking so it's 2-1 atheists now. Hah!

[Whateverist]

One more unsubstantiated claim amid many.  You theists do enjoy carrying on in this vein, don't you.  Do you ever get the feeling you're just talking to yourself?

If I were just talking to myself, then you and Chuck would not have already reacted to my new sig.

Theist - 1
Atheist - 0

I put the score at 

Theist - 1
Atheist - 2

---

To Rob: "Jinx one, two, three!"

[robvalue]

How many points do you get for winning an argument from outside the arc? 3?

[dyresand]

Well it is pretty head-up-your-ass obtuse.

Yep its a wonder why the majority fall for such a bronze age trick then 
we get punished for not falling for it and or even realizing like fuck its all just a fucking trick. 

[Randy Carson]

Tim O'Neill has been debunked already

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/...-show.html

First, the link you provided is to O'Neill's refutation of Fitzgerald's self-published screed.

Later, apparently, Fitzgerald responded in a tizzy to which O'Neill responded again which he posted in an article entitled: "The Jesus Myth Theory: A Response to David Fitzgerald" posted on December 1, 2013.

So, not only has Fitzgerald (and Richard Carrier, btw) been taken down hard by a fellow atheist for the stupidity of the "Jesus Mythicism", but the whole idea that Jesus was a myth (as you continue to assert without providing any support) been debunked, also.

Now, would you please answer my question:

Why do you, dyresand, say that Jesus never existed when noted scholars such as Bart Ehrman and historian Tim O'Neill, who are also atheists, have explained how we can know that he did exist?

Thanks.

[dyresand]

Tim O'Neill has been debunked already

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/...-show.html

Then you missed O'Neill's response to that tripe which he posted in an article entitled: "The Jesus Myth Theory: A Response to David Fitzgerald" posted on December 1, 2013.

Now, would you please answer my question:

Why do you, dyresand, say that Jesus never existed when noted scholars such as Bart Ehrman and historian Tim O'Neill, who are also atheists, have explained how we can know that he did exist?

Thanks.

If you even looked at a map or anything in general of the sort. The problem being mainly is pin pointing the exact date of his birth. Its a good thing we know he was "born" in 
Bethlehem. The other issues being the exact date no on knows people say december 25th it is a pagan holiday of sex getting pregnant and such. So going from there no one knows
his exact birth date or even the date of his death. <- key thing. From there keep a eye on that. Now question this did mary the mother of jesus exist i'll say no to that too. Did she or did she not exist is what ties this into the whole fact being did jesus even exist at all. You would have to find her birth date and her date of death do even find out even if said person jesus existed. I did the search myself did i find someone named mary from the bible in any sort of historical record no. So no her name wouldn't be mary in fact that would be the English name given here name would be either Mariam (Biblical Greek),  (Biblical Hebrew), more than like the Biblical Hebrew of Miriam. So you need to go back a bit further and find out did the jewish temple of virgins exist. Again i looked it up because if mary or miriam did exist the temple should have also. So time to lay the the smack down on this jesus myth. 
1. The temple never existed. Even looking through google to find some sort of information nothing was found even looking deeper still noththing
2. More than likely mary was never a virgin. 
3. The only real support for the jewish temple virgins is found in roman catholoic writings in support
of the roman catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of mary. 


what does this all mean? you may ask yourself. You have been lied too my good friend, you have been lied too. 

Also there is no historical information of a mary or miriam of the bible existing only those in roman catholic writings.

[Pyrrho]

this thread's title is bothering me so much ._.

Maybe you are a budding grammar Nazi.



Still, it is an obvious mistake.  Presumably, it was a typographical error, rather than that he is oblivious to the fact that it should be "Ask an atheist."