Beliefs Without Foundation For Christians

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Beliefs Without Foundation For Christians

In the short time I have been involved with these forums it has become tediously obvious that Christians in particular have no concept of the origins and political nature of their various sects and beliefs.

I am just going to list very few of the most egregious errors that are commonly held as “truth”

Let us start with the biggy:

The synoptic gospels are all eye witness accounts of the Jesus figure's life written by disciples or followers at the time of the events.

Nope, the gospels by their own admission are NOT eye witness accounts. The timelines are wildly off and both Matthew and Luke correct and extensively plagiarise 'Mark” showing they are interpolated, edited copies of that earliest gospel written not earlier than 70CE.
John came much later and is dated to the early part of the second century. All the stories are changed or embellished.

There is lots of evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels existed.

There is no contemporary evidence that a Jesus figure as described in the gospels ever existed. None.

The apostolic tradition lives on in my Church

There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of any Disciples or Apostles*. The gospels don't agree on who they were or where they went. There are no contemporary records of their deaths or even their lives.**They can't even agree on how many there were.

My Church is founded by Jesus

Read your bible; the last thing Jesus the Torah bound Jew would do is admit gentiles to the temple. He instructed his disciples/Apostles not to approach gentiles or even Samaritans unless they first became Jews.

My Church is founded upon the rock of Peter in direct succession

There is no contemporary evidence at all that “Peter” or “Simon Peter” as described in the gospels ever existed.

*Note: A James was at the upper room temple at Jerusalem, and head of the Messianic Jewish sect that developed into Christianity. Several contemporary sources mention him. The same sources call him “Elder Brother” which immediately calls into doubt the virgin story of the mythical Mary figure.

**It is fairly certain that “Paul”, author of the epistles, who is anonymous, existed. But by his own admission never met the Jesus figure and conducted all his business by way of dreams and visions some 30 years after the events described in the gospels. So if your church adheres strictly to the uttering of Paul you may be justified in using “apostolic tradition” ( just insert the word “imagined” here) even though Paul himself was charged with apostasy of the Law by the founders of the Jewish Messianic Jesus sect.

The One True Church

Ther were a myriad of “Jesus” sects in the First and Second Centuries: The Ebionites, The Marcionites, The Sethians, The Syriac Church, The Valentianians, The Ophites, Cainites, Barbeloites, Abelonians, Agapetae, Alogians, Angelici, Antitactae, Aquarii, Archontics, Ascodroutes, Borborites, Levitics, Phibionites, Stratiotici, Carpocratians, Cerinthians, Adamites, Marcellianas, Cleobians, Docetae, Elcesaites, Encratites, Apostolics(Apotactics), Severians, Marcosians, Messalians, Nicolaism, Naassenes, Perates, Priscillianism, Secundians, Seleucians, never mind the many forms of other rites that eventually coalesced under duress from the Roman Emperors into what we now know as the Latin Rite (Catholic) and Eastern traditions. The Latin Rite and Eastern churches survived by dint of extreme brutality, massacre and book burning. It is history, dear reader. Search out and read some truth.

We (insert the church here) preserved/translated the bible as truth

Bollocks. None of you preserved/translated a “bible” you all chant from comparatively recent translations of expurgated, interpolated texts, none of which actually date to the last quarter of the 1st century. Get real.

Pick a point if you wish to argue. Prepare to concede (as I will) when you are found to be in error.

Anyone want to do the same for Islam?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Cognostic's picture
Old Man: "There is no

Old Man: "There is no contemporary evidence that a Jesus figure as described in the gospels ever existed. None."

While I agree that there is no contemporary evidence that a Jesus figure ever existed, it might also be noted that there is no evidence contemporary to the life of this supposed Jesus character that supports his existence either. :-)

Aside from that, I concur.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Agreed Cog, I should have

Agreed Cog, I should have worded that better.

Grinseed's picture
And there's another entry for

And there's another entry for my Old Man's History folder. Thank you. Keep on peddlin', ol fella. Love it.

Lion IRC's picture
There is no contemporary

@Old man shouts...

There is no contemporary evidence that a Jesus figure as described in the gospels ever existed.

You mean they never found the body?
You mean all that persecution of the early Church Of The Totally Imaginary Jesus was a total waste of time?
You mean we use the Gregorian Calendar based on dates of events than never happened?

ilovechloe's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC
Q. You mean they never found the body?
A. If Jesus never existed there wouldn't be a body to find. Even if he did exist & was crucified as claimed, the body was probably left up on the cross as a warning & deterrent to others, which was standard practise, & the carcass eaten & dragged away by wild animals. So again there would be no body to find!

Q. You mean all that persecution of the early Church Of The Totally Imaginary Jesus was a total waste of time?
A. I think that the persecution of the early church was highly exaggerated by Christians. Many christians in the USA today claim they are being persecuted just because there are people who disagree with them (talk about a persecution complex).

You mean we use the Gregorian Calendar based on dates of events that never happened?
A. So what? The gregorian calendar didnt come into use until October 1582. Is it supposed to be proof of something? Thailand & some other Bhuddist countries use the Bhuddist calendar, many islamic countries use the islamic calender. What then does this prove?

Are these the best arguments you have for Jesus existence? I hope you have something better than that in your arsenal!

Lion IRC's picture
@ilovechloe

@ilovechloe
1. I was just wondering if the conspiracy theory included the empty tomb.
2. Exaggerated persecution or not, the Jesus mythers theory entails the claim that Saul of Tarsus, (another actual historical figure,) was persecuting Christians for their beliefs about the life and death of a person who never existed
3. My point is that the historicity of Jesus is so well attested and taken for granted that we instituted a calendar dating system based on that. The claim that Jesus never existed is so belated and extraordinary that it demands extraordinary evidence.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Lyin

@ Lyin

3. My point is that the historicity of Jesus is so well attested and taken for granted

No it is not or we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is no contemporary (to his life) evidence for the Jesus figure as described in the gospels NONE

If you have such evidence then please bring it forward on this thread.
I would enjoy seeing you accept the Nobel prize for History.

ilovechloe's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

You wrote:
1. I was just wondering if the conspiracy theory included the empty tomb.

A. What evidence do you have that there WAS actually an empty tomb? (don't bother quoting the bible, they are claims, not evidence).

Christians don't even know where the original tomb was. Surely if some god guy magically rose from the dead, there would have been huge interest in the tomb he rose from by the early christians, with many visiting the tomb, & its location should have been well known, just as any religious artefacts today gets huge interest from believers. Yet today we have 3 tomb candidates, with absolutely no evidence that ANY of them are actually genuine. it is just wishfull thinking from christians that one of them actually is.

The location of jesus supposed crucifixion is also totally unknown.

2. Exaggerated persecution or not, the Jesus mythers theory entails the claim that Saul of Tarsus, (another actual historical figure,) was persecuting Christians for their beliefs about the life and death of a person who never existed

A. There was definitely some guy who actually wrote letters, only about 6 or 7 of which are thought to be genuine, with the others thought to be forgeries even by christian scholars. I have no idea if this guy persecuted christians or not. There is certainly a 'claim' that he persecuted them, but this could also be an allegorical lesson, that even the worst of jews can become a good christian.

Most of the book of Acts is totally fictitious, making totally exaggerated claims about the early church movement, so I see nothing in Acts as credible historically. I find it totally baffling that this Paul guy, who apparently almost single handedly got the whole christian church movement going, & who is quoted by the churches far more than jesus, is to my knowledge not mentioned by any non-christian historians of the time. Who was this guy really?

3. My point is that the historicity of Jesus is so well attested and taken for granted that we instituted a calendar dating system based on that. The claim that Jesus never existed is so belated and extraordinary that it demands extraordinary evidence."

A. Christians always make the 'claim' that jesus is the most historically attested guy in human history, however this is simply a lie.

The calender system was introduced by pope gregory in 1582. Being introduced by a Catholic pope, it is not surprising that it had a religious element to it. Pope Gregory probably believed that jesus was a historical figure, as did most of the populace due to the massive indoctrination by the church. However starting a calender based on a mythical figure dosnt magically make the mythical figure an actual historical figure.

Does the Bhuddist calendar used in Bhuddist countries prove anything about the Bhudda, or does the Islamic calendar prove anything about mohammed?

Nearly all of the attestation about jesus comes from the bible, which has so many exaggerations, errors & outright lies in it that it simply cannot be trusted as a historical document. It is also impossible to tell from pauls letters wether jesus was ever an actual historical figure, or wether he was merely a spirit figure, imagined by twisting verses in the bible that apparently had a 'secret' message about this messiah figure who was to be resurected, as paul apparently knows nothing about jesus life, or even any of jesus actual sayings or miracles. Was paul a product of jesus, or was jesus actually a product of paul, invented by 'Mark' to tie pauls teachings together into a coherent narrative that could be understood by the early church.

The other non-biblical attestations quoted by christians were written by historians who were born well after jesus purported death, & they are only recounting what they have heard from believers. Not one of them is an eyewitness account. The most famous attestaion by Josephus, is considered by the vast majority of scholars to be a later forgery, & Josephus was also never alive during the time of jesus.

Yes, his existence IS taken for granted by most, because the church has spent the last 2000 years indoctrinating the culture with that belief, often fabricating the evidence. Even those who don't believe jesus to be the son of god, still believe that he existed. I was once one of them, but as new evidence has come to light, & I have given a lot more thought to the weight of the evidence, I no longer hold that view.

There are also biblical scholars, some of them christians, who have also come to the conclusion that jesus is a mythological figure. One was a well respected biblical scholar & catholic priest, who waited for 40 years before he published his book about this, because he knew that the catholic church would try to destroy & discredit him once he did. And yes, that is exactly what they have tried to do (i can't remember the author's name). There are no doubt many more, however they have to keep quiet about it, because if they speak out they know that their career will go down the toilet.

A historical figure such as Alexander the great not only has things written about him, there are also many other clues to his existence, such as coins, inscriptions, statues & busts etc, which can be dated back to his time. However, there is also no reason to believe that EVERYTHING written about Alexander the Great is true. Some of it may be true, some of it may be propaganda, some of it may be hearsay, some of it may be mythological. However Alexander the great is MUCH more attested than this shadowy jesus figure.

David Killens's picture
I ran the tomb story through

I ran the tomb story through my head, and a lot did not make sense. At the time of his death, jesus was in itinerant poor rabble-rouser. But a tomb in that era was very expensive, no poor man could afford one. Then the story gets weird, because some rich dude decided to put jesus in his tomb.

So someone smart enough to amass wealth decides to take sides, especially against the military rulers? A crucifixion is intended to set an example, and to offer a tomb spits in the face of the Roman rulers. In those brutal and barbaric times, to do so usually results in another crucifixion.

Of course, I am very aware that in almost every crucifixion by the Romans, they left the body to hang on the cross until the crows had eaten it.

So many historically illogical inconsistencies .........................

cranky47's picture
@ilovechloe

@ilovechloe

Just thought of this point:

It has always seemed odd to me, given the biblical claims , that nobody knows the date of Jesus' putative birth or of his death.

He was a Jew, so why are no Jewish dates known? Or even he was born in X year of the reign of Augustus Caesar and died in Y year of the Emperor Tiberius.

"There are also biblical scholars, some of them christians, who have also come to the conclusion that Jesus is a mythological figure."

Indeed, SOME, but not many. The closest to a consensus among historians is that Jesus MAY have lived , but that he had little if anything to do with any of the diverse sects which claimed him as founder.

Most christian apologists we get here seem oblivious of the fact that the religion today called 'christianity' was simply one of many sects until the fifth century. At that time, the emperor Theodosius made 'christianity" to the state religion . It was he who popularised the term 'christian'

The new faith became and remained dominant by the simple expedient of murdering all opposition and destroying any books they could find.

This was done with the approval and encouragement of Theodosius. The Christians continued to persecute and d murder dissenters for the next 1000 years.

The alleged persecution of Christians has been greatly exaggerated and mythologised by Christians. It was in no way as thorough or as virulent of later Christian persecution of dissidents

Contemporary evidence for ancient figures is unusual, not the norm .

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

"Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire occurred intermittently over a period of over two centuries between the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD under Nero and the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, in which the Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius legalised the Christian religion.

The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was carried out by the state and also by local authorities on a sporadic, ad hoc basis, often at the whims of local communities. Starting in 250 AD, empire-wide persecution took place as an indirect consequence of an edict by the emperor Decius. This edict was in force for eighteen months, during which time some Christians were killed while others apostatised to escape execution.

These persecutions heavily influenced the development of Christianity, shaping Christian theology and the structure of the Church. The effects of the persecutions included the writing of explanations and defenses of the Christian religion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

My reference

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
by Bart D. Ehrman

There are literally hundreds of video clips by professor Ehrman onYoutube,

cranky47's picture
@Lion IRC

@Lion IRC

" My point is that the historicity of Jesus is so well attested and taken for granted that we instituted a calendar dating system based on that."

Oh dear, yet ANOTHER one . This claim keeps popping up with tedious frequency. Do you people known nothing of the history of your own beliefs? Not only is there no contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus, nor there is no consensus among historians.

The closest to a consensus I've been able to find is (yet again)

That AT BEST ThereMAY have been a first century rabbi in first Century Judea with a name something like Yeshua/Ysoshua bar Yusuf. (not an uncommon name) he MAY have founded a small Jewish sect**. He MAY have been crucified by the Romans for sedition.*** Sadly, being crucified by the Romans was not an uncommon fate fora first century Jew. The Romans crucified thousands of Jews during their occupation.

THAT there is little if any similarity between Jesus of the New Testament and any historical person. ****

**look up the Ebionites.

***It was not Roman custom to remove crucified people from their cross after they had died. Part of the great shame of crucifixion (especially for a jew) w as that the body was left on the cross until it rotted and was eaten by scavengers. Pontius Pilate was apparently a bit of a prick who could not care less what the Jews thought of him. It is therefore extremely unlikely Pilate would have allowed Jesus body to be removed from the cross just after he had died.

Of course I can't prove Jesus was left on the cross. Neither can anyone else. We can't prove Jesus even existed, .therefore we can hardly make any claims about his death and alleged resurrection (even the gospels can't agree on that)**

"The claim that Jesus never existed is so belated and extraordinary that it demands extraordinary evidence.'

WRONG; It is you making the claim [that Jesus existed] it's up to you to prove your claim, not to anyone else to disprove it.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

**** my reference :'Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
by Bart D. Ehrman'

Cognostic's picture
@LionRC: OMG - You win the

@LionRC: OMG - You win the idiot comment of the month!!! Congratulations!

"3. My point is that the historicity of Jesus is so well attested and taken for granted that we instituted a calendar dating system based on that."

THEN WHY DID THEY GET THE DATE WRONG?
The date of birth of Jesus is not stated in the gospels or in any historical reference, but most theologians assume a year of birth between 6 BC and 4 BC.

Well attested to ???? MY ASS!

David Killens's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

"My point is that the historicity of Jesus is so well attested and taken for granted that we instituted a calendar dating system based on that."

The Julian calendar was put into effect 45 BC. In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII institute the Gregorian calendar.

The sole reason why the (supposed) birth of jesus is the reference 0 is the predominance and power of christianity, when it was not challenged. You challenged the church, the odds were good you would be tortured, maybe even murdered.

But even the reference date of jesus's birth (Easter) is that this was taken from previous pagan celebrations of the coming spring, and fertility.

Tin-Man's picture
@David K. Re: "But even the

@David K. Re: "But even the reference date of jesus's birth (Easter) is that this was taken from previous pagan celebrations of the coming spring, and fertility."

Easter is definitely a Pagan celebration, but Christiand now use it for the death and resurrection of Jesus. Christmas is the Pagan celebration used by Christians for the birth of Jesus. : ) Got your Pagan holidays confused... *chuckle*...

David Killens's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

Yea, I got that wrong.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Liyin

@ Liyin

"You mean they never found the body?

Well if the magical jesus figure of the gospels existed would there be a body after the resurrection? If not then did he actually die? there is a lot of doubt on that score....

I think you should start with producing evidence for YOUR claims.

Ok, will not hold my breath.

Lion IRC's picture
@Correct User Name

@Correct User Name
This is your thread.
It's YOUR claim that Jesus never existed.
I'm just curious why/how you can hold such an extraordinary belief.

David Killens's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

"It's YOUR claim that Jesus never existed."

Old man's statement was "There is no contemporary evidence that a Jesus figure as described in the gospels ever existed. None." He did not deny, he put into question a folk tale that so far, has not been proven or evidenced.

Nice try at reversing the burden of proof. Fail.

You are a theist, you are the one making the god and jesus claim. Thus all of the burden of proof is on you or any other theists making such claims.

David Killens's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

"You mean all that persecution of the early Church Of The Totally Imaginary Jesus was a total waste of time?"

The history of the Roman empire is very biased and incomplete based on the bible. I suggest you study the full and rich history of the Roman empire. Because the history of the Romans is one of brutality and genocide against any body that was a threat to them. They "persecuted" many different groups.

Do you really believe so many christians were thrown to the lions in games? Here is a little tidbit. The games were sponsored by the ruling class, to keep the masses happy and distracted. Lions and christians are very poor entertainment for a crowd that was used to, and expected great battles of skill and courage.

Algebe's picture
@Lion IRC: You mean all that

@Lion IRC: You mean all that persecution of the early Church Of The Totally Imaginary Jesus was a total waste of time?

According to Tacitus, The Christians were persecuted as scapegoats for the great fire of Rome in Nero's time. They were already viewed with suspicion because of their habit of calling each other brother and sister, even between married couples, and because of their refusal to take part in official religious ceremonies.

Cognostic's picture
@Algebe: Add to it the fact

@Algebe: Add to it the fact that Rome had strict laws about meetings. Only approved meetings were allowed to take place and the Christians were not following the rules.

Grinseed's picture
Do you mean the twenty years,

@ Lion IRC

Did you mean the twenty years, thirty years tops, of persecutions against Christians in the first three hundred years up to 325BC which I agree was pretty nasty?

Or do you mean the following 1600+ years of persecution, torture, progroms and witchhunts against pagans, Jews and heretic Christians which really was a genuine waste of time and opportunity to legitimately spread the tolerant and pacifist teachings of Christianity?

The Gregorian calendar was derived to determine the 'bona fide' dates of the Resurrection to avoid utilising the supposedly inferior sidereal calendar method of the despised deocide Jews which was used to determine the dates of the Passover.
Ironically both events were believed to share the same original dates and both events are shrouded in historical uncertainty.

Whitefire13's picture
I don’t swim much in the

I don’t swim much in the “deep end”, but for me, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have Jewish names...oh, uhhhh, let me think a minute.

Lion IRC's picture
מַתִּתְיָ֫הוּ

מַתִּתְיָ֫הוּ
לֵוִי
Mattith-yahu Levi

Quite common in Hellenized Judea

Whitefire13's picture
Ready to dip my toe in the

Ready to dip my toe in the deep end - got on my floaties!!!

From Wikipedia regarding the Koran: “ According to tradition, several of Muhammad's companions served as scribes and recorded the revelations.[26] Shortly after his death, the Quran was compiled by the companions, who had written down or memorized parts of it.[27] The codices showed differences that motivated Caliph Uthman to establish a standard version, now known as Uthman's codex, which is generally considered the archetype of the Quran known today. There are, however, variant readings, with mostly minor differences in meaning.[26]”

So there is a formula for the inerrant divine word.
Say shit. Don’t write anything down. Your friends remember the shit you say years later. They write it down. Years later, some guy takes the written shit and decides which shit is good and which shit is bad - publishes it. People read the shit and say “...this is good shit...”. Defend it. Bend over backwards. Try to kick the shit out of people that say “I have no reason to believe that shit...”.

Imagine if science used this formula - then we’d have someone to worship!
John Nash mumbles to his friends about his economic formula. Doesn’t write it down (that’s important). His friends years later write his story. Describe how he was divinely guided to his mathematics and persecuted for it. How “angels” spoke to the man...as proof, one of them write down his formula/s (as best as he remembers). Now we have proof!!!

Tin-Man's picture
@Whitefire Re: Being in the

@Whitefire Re: Being in the deep end

By golly, you are a natural, m'Lady.... *flourishing bow*.... Welcome to the Deep End.

Lion IRC's picture
My Church is founded upon the

Christian claim -

"My Church is founded upon the rock of Peter in direct succession"

Old Man Shouts...

There is no contemporary evidence at all that “Peter” or “Simon Peter” as described in the gospels ever existed.

I think the existence of the disciple Peter/Cephas is as certain as the existence of Saul of Tarsus. Saul/Paul refers to him directly. Clearly, Bart Ehrman thinks Peter is a historical figure.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Lying

@ Lying

think the existence of the disciple Peter/Cephas is as certain as the existence of Saul of Tarsus
I will certainly agree with that statement...ermmm what was the evidence for Saul of Tarsus again?

Saul/Paul refers to him directly. Clearly, Bart Ehrman thinks Peter is a historical figure.

Aaaand here we go again:
There is no contemporary evidence for a Peter or Simon Peter outside of the gospels. None. No life, no death , nothing. Having said that "A" Peter according to Paul existed "one question often brought up is this: Is the Peter who led a very Jewish sect of Christianity, the same as the Peter who would later stand by Paul (a Hellenist) and be bishop of his Churches, and is either of these actually Simon Peter, the "right hand" of Jesus?"(Wiki)

Now read that sentence in quotes again, make sure you actually get the meaning....ask yourself would a very very Jewish orthodox Peter stand by a hellenist, already declared Apostate by the Temple in Jerusalem?
Answer; very unlikely to be the same person who allegedly deserted the Jesus figure on the cross or who became "bishop" in the nascent Latin church.
Definitely NOT the author of 1 Peter which Bart Ehrmann concludes in his blogs.

This where apologists like yourself always get it wrong by making sweeping statements and not looking at the reality of the 1st century and the origins of their church.

And once again you misdirect on Ehrmanns conclusions. I suggest instead of googling and posting your replies where you think they agree with your presuppositions you quote the author and his EXACT conclusions. Not as cut and dried as you want to believe.

I recommend you read the following link before you misquote Bart Ehrmann again: https://thebestschools.org/special/ehrman-licona-dialogue-reliability-ne...

Lets keep you as honest as you can be eh?

(Edit spelling)

Lion IRC's picture
Christian claim - "There is

Christian claim -

"There is lots of evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels existed."

Old Man Shouts...

There is no contemporary evidence that a Jesus figure as described in the gospels ever existed. None.

How come so many really really smart, super rational, clear thinking atheist skeptics concede the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth? They never accept claims without evidence.

Therefore, either there IS evidence for the historical Jesus...OR those rational atheists aren't as clever as the conspiracy theorists who say Jesus never existed.

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "How come so many

Lion IRC "How come so many really really smart, super rational, clear thinking atheist skeptics concede the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth? They never accept claims without evidence.

Therefore, either there IS evidence for the historical Jesus...OR those rational atheists aren't as clever as the conspiracy theorists who say Jesus never existed."

Or the paucity of evidence lends itself to no solid conclusion either way, and of course you could have Jesus's fucking DNA, it wouldn't making him anything but human, or the supernatural claims assigned to him anything but ignorant unevidenced archaic superstition from people who didn't know diseases were spread by germs, and not by demons that could be exorcised into pigs and then chased off a cliff. Citing atheists who accept Jesus was an historical figure is pretty fucking hilarious anyway, made me grin until my jaw aches.

Incidentally I think you missed this...

https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/bible-contradiction-h...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.