Search results

But of course it can be "easily explained". You make it sound as if Christianity started as a thing , but it was nothing of the kind. What would eventually evolve into Christianity through a period of at least 2 centuries started out ambiguously in the form of a bunch of Jewish upstarts...

Sure, but far better than opinion would be external historical or archaeological evidence to support the existence of either Jesus or Mohammed. There is non. Nothing. Not one jot enough to show either did actually exist. Only naive stories, gullibility, claims, assertion, lame argument...

Open mindedness, questioning, curiosity. Commendable attributes :thumbsup: First, I think you'll find there is no actual historical evidence at all giving providence to any writings of Mohammed. As mentioned previously, nothing whatsoever appears about him until around 100 years after his...

Who says Jews always responded in peaceful ways? When the Roman Empire persecuted Jewish Christians, Judaism was enjoying special status which gave it priority over breakaway insurgent Jewish cults such as Christianity. So why wouldn't institutionalized Jews actively encourage the Jewish...

I think you'd find Jews look at the claims made about Jesus with similar incomprehension to that which Christians generally apply to Mohammed. The character has no real meaning to them. When it is to do with religion, a story is stronger than any fact. So the best way to reject one story is...

Pearls like this Psalm 137:9

Shocking news: Biblical scholars are mostly Christians Islamic scholars are Non-Christian sources as well as Jewish scholars are, and they both rely on religious / biblical accounts only as source for Jesus. Because there is literally no other source to rely on. Tacitus is less useful than...

Scholars do not question one entry but generally agree it has been interpolated . A less polite term for that is forged. But you are missing the point. Serious scholars didn't doubt the faked passage in Josephus until they were eventually obliged by other serious scholars to accept they could...

The Modern scholarship you refer to consisting mainly of Christian apologists, largely acknowledged another universally agreed fake Josephus reference to the highest level of authenticity, until they stopped doing it due to the evidence supplied by real Modern scholars. The crap put out there by...

Well if you had made that 2k years ago, history would preserve it as the only evidence to say 'Jesus lived' within at least 100 years after his supposed death . However, you made it in the here and now and as there is no real evidence, no historicity whatsoever to the claim 'Jesus lived'...

It's an amazing phenomenon but not sure it should be quite so surprising as it's often made out to be. To observe a beam of electrons it requires light or a sensor which will change or interfere with an electrons' environment. So of course the observation itself might be expected to mess with...

That's a rather strong way of putting it but yeah ok, the twisted to fuck Jesus lived propaganda it is.

"There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references - nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death - even if we include the entire first century of the...

If a scientist or anyone else is doing faith, they ain't doing science. Simples.

If you need faith to say there is a God and faith to say there is an after life, then there must be an absence of faith to say differently. If you need faith to say both there is and there isn't something, then faith is a complete dead end. That does a massive injustice to faith. Blind...

Sin. Created in the Bible so Christianity could push the cure. Convince folks they have something they don't, then sell 'em a remedy. Oldest trick (and it's) in the book.

Fabulous clip. Much more poignant than the one I have on the same theme.

Indeed. But those were secular values prior to their use to form the general format which became Christianity. In my view if those positives can't be applied purely for their own sake without the condition of a religion demanding them under instruction or with threat and fear of retribution as...

50 years well after. Of which period just 6 of the 13 letters of Paul can be substantiated enough to make them only potentially authentic. So Paul or Saul or whatever the pen name or true name was, is writing in an era when the history of a religion starts to get cobbled together. The product...

Whoever Paul might have actually been he was not an eye witness. He was developing his missives well after the supposed life time of Jesus. So once again it is stuff which is not contemporaneous, first hand or verifiable nor to be frank, the product of a mentally well balanced person unless it...