93 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
@Lance Lance Lance: WTF is

@Lance Lance Lance: WTF is wrong with you! The Apostles did not write the gospels. Where in the hell did you ever get that idea? The Bible itself tells you that the authorship of the Gospels are unknown. The gospels are stories about Jesus and his apostles. They were written 40 to 100 years later. We have no writings from Jesus or the apostles unless you want to assert Paul, the self proclaimed apostle, who never met Jesus. is an actual apostle.

Paul does not even believe Jesus was a human being with a ministry on earth. Paul knows nothing about a virgin birth, nothing about the ministry of Jesus, nothing about the miracles of Jesus. Nothing about the travels of Jesus. Paul's Jesus, it has been argued. is an Old Testament Angel.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Lance

@ Lance

I would add most scholars believe there is a document Q which the synoptics draw from

Correction: 'SOME scholars believe' there is a growing number of scholars that have examined the texts of the Epistles of Paul, the first three we know are by the same author and that 'Mark' some 30 to 35 years later after 70CE adapted them to a story line, adding miracles and vast crowds (Sermon on the Mount) to spice up the kernel of the story in Paul's first epistles.

Then some time afterward both 'Matthew' and 'Luke' writing for their OWN audiences exclusively elaborated on those tales in Mark. Each author adapting and adding to the tale to establish a credibility for their exclusive versions of the story.

You can see in later years where local 'christian' sects refused to accept the other gospels and where churches were founded (in India for instance) that used the Gospel of Thomas as their foundation.

We know that some early versions of both Luke and Mathew did not contain, and conversely DID contain content we do not, see today. We know this because the Roman Church went to great lengths to tell us why those adherents were anathema and their works were to be burned and their congregations executed if they did not repent and join the dominant church.

Just curious why do think the apostles would not have written the gospels?

There are a myriad of reasons to doubt the authenticity of the gospel texts as presented. Many books have been written about the veracity and authorship of the gospels and other books in the bible. If you are really interested in learning you can PM me and I will start you off with a reading list.
Simply put we know that Mark was the first to have been recorded, it dates between 70 and 75CE, the other synoptics had to have been written after that date which would have made the authors between 470 years and 90 years old at the time of writing. Even if we didn't have the evidence of all the copying, that, alone, would kill the idea that they were eye witness accounts that had any credibility.

Cognostic's picture
@LANCE: Your own bible will

@LANCE: Your own bible will tell you that the authors are unknown. READ THE FRIGGING FORWARDS.

Mark is the earliest gospel, composed between 60 and 80CE, by a Roman convert who was unfamiliar with Jewish customs and who had not met Jesus. The oldest versions of Mark all ended at Mark 16:8 with the words "according to Mark", and an unknown author at some point added Mark 16:9-20. (At best we have copies of copies that were copied again and then written down with the worlds according to Mark. (SEE OLD MAN'S POST ABOVE FOR THE TIME LINE - 80+YEARS after the supposed death of this Jesus guy., (We have "NO" first century manuscripts.) Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

Matthew and Luke both used Mark as their source material (92% and 54% copied, respectively), except they corrected many of his blunders about Jewish life and added additional material from a second source document that historians call "Q"4. Matthew was written after 70CE and before 100CE. The first two chapters of Matthew were not present in the first versions and were added later by an unknown author...

John was written last. Our earliest fragment of it dates from 125CE. It has Jesus speak using completely different language, sentence structure and style to the other gospels. It contradicts the others on almost every point of history.


David Killens's picture


"I would add most scholars believe there is a document Q which the synoptics draw from. That's up for debate however as it has not been discovered yet."

In other words, pure speculation intended to support a fairy tale.

"Just curious why do think the apostles would not have written the gospels?"

Because they were a gang of thugs. If one takes a step back and examines the tale of the apostles and their relationship to jesus, this fits into the profile of a small time crime boss and his gang of thugs. They traveled around together with no source of income,yet managed to find food, wine, and lodging. Once the crime boss got executed, the gang dissolved.

algebe's picture


Another question. Why was it so important for Mary to be a virgin?

Are you aware of the translation error that gave rise to the perverse virginity cult?

Lwhorton's picture
The wording actually says

The wording actually says something more like young girl, but in ancient Israel that is synonymous with virgin. That is a translation wording by King James which I don't like. There are a ton of reasons for the importance of her virginity, if you really want to know I'll answer.

algebe's picture
@Lance: There are a ton of

@Lance: There are a ton of reasons for the importance of her virginity

Name one.

I think you're downplaying the central importance of the misguided virginity cult to the subsequent evolution of Christianity. Are you suggesting the translation error started with King James?

Lwhorton's picture
@algebe, King James Version

@algebe, King James Version made the decision to translate virgin yes. But like I said virgin and young girl were synonymous in the ANE. Non-virgins were shunned by their family and disgraced- you can see that in Jesus' story too.

One of the main reasons Mary had to be a virgin:
In the ANE (actually other areas as well) there was an idea of humans being birthed by the Gods. This can be seen in modern times through the idea of "Mother Earth." Genesis is clear (even if you don't believe it), that Yhwh created, not birthed humans. Mary's virginity is vital so that Jesus is different from all of creation. There is a lot more too it, but that's the Cliff note version.

Cognostic's picture
@ALL: Come on guys, If Old

@ALL: Come on guys, If Old Man can still be a virgin so can Marry. It's a minor issue. If we could get him off that trike and onto a Harley, he might have a chance.

algebe's picture


Indeed it is a minor issue. Wasn't Mary 12 when she got pregnant?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture


HAH! Mrs Hand and her 5 daughters will tell you a different story...and my old Ariel 250 would kill any Harley, I know that cos it nearly killed me. It is why I now ride a trike.

Cognostic's picture
@Algebe: It was important

@Algebe: It was important for Mary to be a virgin becasue all the other Gods were born of virgins. Krishna, Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Heracles, Dionysus, Tammuz, Adonis, and others... If you wanted to be a God, you needed a virgin birth.

algebe's picture
@Cognostic: If you wanted to

@Cognostic: If you wanted to be a God, you needed a virgin birth.

Except for Christianity.

When Isaiah 7:14 ("Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel") was translated into Greek, they translated "almah" (young unmarried woman) as "virgin" (parthenos). The Hebrew for "virgin" is "betulah". So the Christian gospel writers distorted the Jesus story to fulfill an erroneous prophesy.

I see the Virgin Mary cult as an vile insult to all mothers.

Randomhero1982's picture
Questions for Christianity?

Questions for Christianity? Sure...

Why would you believe such bollocks in the face of overwhelming evidence?

There is bugger all empirical evidence to support the notion of some cosmic wizard poofing everything into existence, nor any solid evidence of your Jesus charachter that resembles a swedish tennis player, who so happens to be fucking around in the middle east.

Why do you believe in miracles, despite the fact that none have ever be proven to happen and the laws of nature are never suspended in favor of moderately evolved primates, that are clinging onto a dying rock, hurtling through space... even for the most gullible idiots.

How can you justify that your magical imaginary friend can create everything and know everything and also have homosexuals who's very natural acts of love are a mortal sin... if true, that would be without doubt the cruellest act by this pan dimensional dip shit.

Why does Jesus have to come again? Does that not demonstrate that not only is your god a colossal fuck up, but his begotten son clearly can't get things right either... Perhap the twats were involved with Brexit...

Just a few things to start with...

Simon Moon's picture


"Maybe I should clarify. I really want to know what you would have trouble believing, what do you think Christians are stupid for believing etc."

The majority of atheists tend to more about the Bible than most Christians. So, there probably aren't that many questions that we have not heard Christians provide there flawed rationalizations for.

I have trouble believing claims for which there isn't: demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support.

There is not an argument, so called 'evidence', interpretations, etc that I have not heard. And NONE of them stands up to real scrutiny and critical thinking. I have a shelf full of apologists books from authors such as: McDowell, Plantinga, Craig, Strobel, Habermas, Lennox, etc. I doubt you could offer anything we haven't heard 100's of times.

I don't think Christians are 'stupid' for believing anything, just misinformed, indoctrinated, and lacking some critical thinking skills. I used to be a sincere believer, I didn't get less stupid when I became a nonbeliever, I just got better at skepticism and critical thinking.

Lwhorton's picture
I'm actually very impressed

I'm actually very impressed with the Biblical knowledge people on this board have. Maybe you could come to my church and teach a class in how to study the Bible lol. I don't agree with your conclusions, but I admire your dedication

Cognostic's picture
@lance: All anyone has to

@lance: All anyone has to actually do is sit down and read the damn stories. It's just that simple. Christians DO NOT read their holy text. If they did, there would be a whole lot more atheists in the world.

Lwhorton's picture
Ok, I just saw the note about

Ok, I just saw the note about adding who I addressed, I was hitting reply to the thread and thought it showed as a reply to that post. Sorry.

Thanks for the input, like I said I was simply looking for some insight into your thoughts.

Lwhorton's picture
Hey all, while we're talking,

Hey all, while we're talking, what are your thoughts on intelligent design. Most people I speak with that are as well read as y'all seem to at least recognize there was intelligence behind the created order. Even Richard Dawkins admitted it was a possibility.

Cognostic's picture
@Lance: Not HERE Start

@Lance: Not HERE Start another thread.
If Dawkins admitted it was a possibility then he was wrong. It's really simple. Possibility needs to be possible before you can assert it is a possibility. To assert that there is an intelligent designer, you must first demonstrate that an intelligent designer is a real option by somehow showing it to be a real option.

Possibility needs to be demonstrated.

Lwhorton's picture
@Congostic "Possibility

@Congostic "Possibility needs to be possible" What negates the possibility of Intelligent Design? One of the basic inferences of creation is the possibility of intelligent design is it not- even if you disprove that inference (where we obviously differ)

Cognostic's picture
@Lance: You have no reason to

@Lance: You have no reason to assume creation and no reason to assume intelligent design. Please demonstrate either position. All you are doing is making assumptions.

boomer47's picture
Burden of proof is yours; it


The burden of proof is yours; it's up to you to prove your claim. It is not up to others to disprove anything .

Have a look at 'Russell's Teapot":

"Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media."

Lwhorton's picture
starting a thread

starting a thread

David Killens's picture
Let's see. Although I am late

Let's see. Although I am late ot this party, my thoughts on the birth of jesus.

Although his father had a good profession of being a carpenter, he was so fucked up he couldn't even obtain decent lodgings for his very pregnant wife. So what does that indicate? An alcoholic father? Definitely a dysfunctional family. And the mother, wow, talk about a crazy one. I'm a virgin, really"....... sure. What man and woman get married and don't do the horizontal mambo on their wedding night? Really.

So the kid gets born, in of all places, among sheep and cows and pigs and three wandering homeless dudes just being voyeurs. And then the kid just wanders around stirring up shit until he gets caught and punished for his crimes. It's not his fault, he came from a very dysfunctional family.

So in his later years he hangs around with twelve tough dudes and a hooker. Crime boss? Pimp? Or just con-man?

Earth's picture


I'll play along...

I have trouble believing that someone put Jesus on a pedestal claiming that he is more than a man.
It would be much easier in this world to believe in a Jesus born of man and try to emulate him than to believe in a Jesus born of God which apparently no one else is.
You cannot be like Jesus if he is born of God.
However if Jesus is a regular man, it would be more attainable and inspiring to try to emulate Jesus....the good stories at least.

Why do you put him on a pedestal that is so high and unattainable?

Cognostic's picture
@ RE: "Jesus born of God

@ RE: "Jesus born of God which apparently no one else is."

No one else? Any idea at all, how many 'Sons of God" there were in the first century? Historically, many rulers have assumed titles such as son of God, son of a god or son of heaven. In the Old Testament, angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God.

Adam was also God's son.

Some of God's sons had sex with women producing a race of giants.
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. ... There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them. Genesis 6:2-4

Israel is God's firsborn son.
Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn. Exodus 4:22 I [God] am a father to Israel. Jeremiah 31:9

Ephraim is my [God's] firstborn. Jeremiah 31:9

Satan and his companions are sons of God. he sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. Job 2:1

The king that God set on the holy hill of Zion is God's son. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:7-8

Solomon was God's son. He [Solomon] shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. 2 Samuel 7:13-14

God's sons were present when the universe was created. Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:6-7

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. John 1:12

Whoever is led by the Spirit of God is a son of God. As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Romans

Hercules was a son of god.

The first century was replete with Sons of Gods.

Earth's picture
Mr. COGNISTIC. Thanks for the

Mr. COGNISTIC. Thanks for the history lesson although it is quite clear that The OP and Lance believe in Jesus as the only direct son of God. Hence my reply to Lance.

Sheldon's picture


You'll need to show some integrity and address the many other abandoned topics you've started before you'll "hook" many into this new vapid conversation about an unevidenced myth.

However, and as always, my sole question is what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

This one negates the need to discuss "unicorn husbandry" until someone evidences a unicorn.

Cognostic's picture

@Sheldon: YOU NEED TO COME UP WITH A NEW QUESTION. You have been asking the same stupid question since I got here and not one theist has given you an answer yet. I'm convinced it is the question, not the theists. Could I possibly be wrong? :-)

Perhaps you should ask them something they know.
1. Why is the banana an atheists nightmare?
2. If a jar of peanut butter sits on the shelf for a year, will new life emerge?
3. What is a "True Christian?"
4. What do Atheists really believe?
5. What did Jesus really say?

You are just asking the wrong question!


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.