Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Crossless2.0]

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


lol

[Bucky Ball]

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.

[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?!?!?

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla

Whatever drugs you're on, dude, you should stop taking them.
AGAIN, put me on ignore. I have no plans to waste any time on your foolish rubbish.
You are an ignoramus. You have a 3rd Grade understanding of these matters.
Your garbage is not worth wasting even 1 second on.

Your conclusion about Pilate and Roman sources was so off the wall, it's just bizarre. I myself used a Roman source.
The distinction I made went over your head. You got nothing.
Nothing.

[TwoCultSurvivor]

Moronic?

Actually, you DID say Court of Law, and you grew up in Florida, where I currently live. It would be absurd to to think you were talking about a court system from a completely different country.
You're claiming I used a straw man. Nonsense. I used your actual argument.
you claim a court ruled he deserved execution because he claimed to be the son of God, but there is no evidence that there ever was such a court ruling, so YOU are the one employing circular reasoning, relying on a court ruling that never happened to prove the thing happened because a court ruling condemned him. That is the definition of circular reasoning. It is far from "moronic." It is definitive.

You cannot prove there WAS a trial of Christ. Therefore, you cannot draw conclusions from that trial. Otherwise, your reasoning is circular.

Pilate did not point blank ask Jesus anything because Jesus likely never appealed before Pilate. The only evidence he did comes from sources that claim Pilate did things the real Pilate, according to reliable sources, never would have done. Like release a murderer because it was Passover. He never did that. Not only was it not his custom; it was antithetical to his vicious philosophy.

So if you want to claim the gospels as evidence the gospels happened, then I get to claim Amazing Fantasy 10 as evidence that Amazing Fantasy 10 happened, and therefore Spider-Man is real!

---

P.S.

No Spider-Man does NOT mean there is no New York, no Empire State Building, and no Twin Towers that were destroyed on 9/11.

It only means the fictional character who purportedly lived in NYC at the time those things existed... didn't.

[Minimalist]

first you claim I'm moving the goal posts, but I never assigned a ourt to judge Christ.

Your stupid fucking book did.

[GrandizerII]

The Call of Cthu ... I mean, Abram
Genesis 12:1-9

One day, while in Harran, the LORD appeared to Abram and instructed him to leave Harran and check out Canaan, the land which the LORD promised to eventually hand over to Abram's descendants. So Abram leaves Harran with his wife Sarai and his nephew Lot, taking with them their people and their possessions. Abram was still 75 years young at the time, but still childless ...

In Canaan, Abram and his group explore the land as far as the area with the great tree of Moreh (at Shechem) and built an altar there to the LORD. From there, they headed towards the hills east of Bethel, where he camped for a while and also built an altar. After that, they continued on towards the Negev.

And that's the end of the passage.

Here, we see the LORD appear (perhaps for the first time) to Abram, blessing him and promising a great nation out of him. We also get a bit of taste (for the first time in the Bible) of the land of Canaan, already inhabited by the Canaanites and later to be given to the Israelites, the descendants of Abram. In building a couple of altars to the LORD, Abram must've already had high hopes in this God, despite having no child yet at the age of 75. This is confirmed later on in Genesis 15, in which it is said that "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness". This is Abram, the first father of the Israelites, setting a clear example for his descendants. For the Israelite, the lesson is simple: "Keep the faith in the LORD, especially in the face of obstacles, and falter not, for when you put your trust in him, he will deliver ... and be further glorified in doing so."

Here's a promise God made to Abram in Genesis 12:2-3:

"I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Interesting. Not only would God bless Abram's direct descendants, but all the peoples of the earth through him. This is how important Abraham, and consequently the whole of Israel, was to the original recipients of these accounts. The whole world revolved around the great and special Israel. The mighty LORD would curse those who cursed Abram (and Israel) and bless those who blessed them.

Christians generally have their own interpretation of this passage, but that would be reading way too much into what the verses are simply saying.

And as for that great tree of Moreh, does anyone have something they would like to add on that? What was so special about that tree? Must've been some prominent-looking tree in Shechem that they had to make a legend out of it.

[Abaddon_ire]

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!

Where exactly is this other light generated?

[LastPoet]

God already had a mobile with a LED lantern. See how easy it is?

[vulcanlogician]

Not much going on here yet. Here is a Wiki article on the historicity of Abraham. I believe he is regarded as totally fictional by scholars, but I could be wrong about that.

Abraham's well at Beersheba
In the early and middle 20th century, leading archaeologists such as William F. Albright and biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts. His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations.[7] By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Historicity