Jesus - the not so friendly ghost.

Religion is an institution of ignorance.

This was the response to me when I asked for contemporary evidence, outside of the bible, which would demonstrate the bodily resurrection of Christ as absolute proof he was god. I am red he is black. I get tired of addressing the same age old ignorant responses championed by William Craig Lane who has been refuted so many times it is pathetic.

It is the job of the theist to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt with current historical data that Jesus came back to life after he was killed. If any doubt can be raised or other explanations can be offered their stupid story fails.

The first fact is Jesus' crucifixion. Even an extremely liberal like Crossan says: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be." Skeptic James Tabor says, "I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus' execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead." Both Gerd Ludemann, who's an atheistic New Testament critic, and Bart Ehrman, who's an agnostic, call the crucifixion an indisputable fact.

So what idiot? This has nothing to do with the question. Dr.William Lane Craig loves to do this shit. He quote mines from 'liberal' sources. As if it strengthens his case. The buffoon here, uses quotes from agnostics who disagree 100% with his conclusion, he would know this if he read their work. Yet, he rips a quote from here and there and I ought to be impressed?

Why? First of all, because all four Gospels report it.

Here is why this source sucks. They all report variations(from a theist POV) and contradictions which are known to have been embellished - here is a brief introduction to John. Regardless of the conclusion my point still stands. Some make almost no mention of this event christianity hinges itself upon. We have almost no original material from the gospels. We surly have no original copy of a gospel in its entirety. The gospels are anonymous books who borrowed or stole much material from a single author or source. The idiot who responded also must not understand midrash or rabbinical anecdotes. It is believed by several hundred modern day scholars that this source was known as, "The book of Q". The gospels were hand chosen by men, multiple 'lost gospel' from. The books are not even arranged in chronological order - I dislike WiKi but this article does a decent job. We know much pious fraud existed. Many of the early church fathers obviously did not have access to all of the gospels.

There is a ton of problems. I do not have the desire or interest to hold your hand. However, it is not difficult to extrapolate from this that men wrote a book. Men read the OT. Men wanted god to save them. Men wrote the NT. Later men read the same book(s) and added their endings, understandings or lies. Later men had access to some of these writings, killed men, set up councils, argued and ordered the books they had at their disposal to tell the story they wanted.

Let me clarify something: For the purposes of examining the evidence, I'm not considering the Bible to be inerrant, inspired, or scripture of any kind. I'm simply accepting it for what it unquestionably is, a set of ancient documents that can be subjected to historical scrutiny like any other accounts from antiquity. In other words, regardless of my personal beliefs, I'm applying the same historical standards to it that I would apply to Thucydides or Suetonius.

I have already shown why the gospels are not to be trusted as worthy historical references. If you are inclined hundreds of books have been written, movies have been made and much material is available. In no other niche would such crap be viewed as historical or noteworthy references. However, in NT study the vast majority of the scholars hinge their personal religious faith on the proof they offer. I am not saying we discount their arguments but we must seriously examine and consider.

I truthfully do not care what conclusion the modern christian scholar has reached either, nor should you. We should be interested in the evidence.

Now, beyond the four Gospels, we also have a number of non-Christian sources that corroborate the crucifixion. For instance, the historian Tacitus said Jesus "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus reports Pilate "condemned him to be crucified." Lucian of Samosata, who was a Greek satirist, mentions the crucifixion, and Mara Bar-Serapion, who was a pagan, confirms Jesus was executed. Even the Jewish Talmud reports that "Yeshu was hanged."

This first fact is as solid as anything in ancient history: Jesus was crucified and died as a result. The scholarly consensus, again, even among those who are skeptical toward the resurrection, is absolutely overwhelming. To deny it would be to take a marginal position that would get you laughed out of the academic world.

The second fact is the disciples' beliefs that Jesus had actually returned from the dead and had appeared to them. There are three strands of evidence for this: Paul's testimony about the disciples; oral traditions that passed through the early church; and the written works of the early church.

Paul is important because he reports knowing some of the disciples personally, including Peter, James, and John. Acts conforms this. And Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that whether "it was I or they, this is what we preach," referring to the resurrection of Jesus. So in other words, Paul knew the apostles and reports that they claimed, just as he did, that Jesus had returned from the dead.

Then we have oral tradition. Obviously, people in those days didn't have tape recorders and few people could read, so they relied on verbal transmission for passing along what happened until it was later written down. Scholars have identified several places in which this oral tradition has been copied into the New Testament in the form of creeds, hymns, and sermon summations. This is really significant because the oral tradition must have existed prior to the New Testament writings for the New Testament authors to have included it.

So it's early. Very early, which weights heavily in its favor, as any historian will tell you. For example, we have creeds that laid out basic doctrines in a form that was easily memorized. One of the earliest and most important creeds was relayed by Paul in his first latter to the Corinthian church, which was written about AD 55. First Corinthians 15:3-7 says:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

This is talking about a vision. I suggest you take a close look. Visions were common and always culturally defined. IE: vision of zeus, allah, thor. Like Paul described visions of great things were almost always in the presence of a great white light.

Many scholars believe Paul received this creed from Peter and James while visiting with them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. That would be within five years of the crucifixion.

So what?

Think about that, it's really amazing! As one expert said, "This is the sort of data historians of antiquity drool over." Not only is it extremely early, but it was apparently given to Paul by eyewitnesses or others he deemed reliable, which heightens its credibility even more.

Again it is talking about visions. Very seriously it could have been outright hallucinations. However, I do not believe that.

The creed is powerful and persuasive. Although early dating does not totally rule out the possibility of intervention or deceit on the part of Jesus' followers, it is much too early to be the result of legendary development over time, since it can practically be traced to the original disciples of Jesus. In fact, this creed has been one of the most formidable obstacle to critics who try to shoot down the resurrection. It's simply gold for a historian.

And we got even more oral tradition, for instance, the New Testament preserves several sermons of the apostles. Actually, these are apparently summaries of preaching of the apostles, since most of them can be read aloud in five minutes or less. I'm sure the actual sermons lasted a lot longer than that. At a minimum, we can say that the vast majority of historians believe that the apostolic teachings are enshrined in these sermon summaries in Acts, and they're not at all ambiguous: They declare that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

For example, Paul says in Acts 13, which is very similar to what Peter reports in Acts 2: "For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you." That's a bold and forthright assertion: David's body decayed, but Jesus' didn't, because he was raised from the dead.

Finally we have written sources, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's widely accepted, even among skeptical historians, that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even very liberal scholars will concede that we have four biographies written within seventy years of Jesus' life that unambiguously report the disciples' claims that Jesus rose from the dead.

I think an excellent case can be made for dating the Gospels earlier, but let's go with the more generous estimations. That's still extremely close to the events themselves, especially compared to many other ancient historical writings. Our two best sources on Alexander the Great, for instance, weren't written until at least four hundred years after his life.

As for Caesar Augustus, who is generally regarded as Rome's greatest emperor, there are five sources used by historians to write history of his adulthood: A brief funeral inscription, a source written fifty and a hundred years after his death, and three sources written between a hundred and two hundred years after he died. So it's really remarkable that in the case of Jesus, we have four biographies that even liberals agree were written within thirty-five to sixty-five years after his execution.

Ummm? Ok? Did Caesar Augustus raise the dead? Did Caesar Augustus walk on water? Did Caesar Augusts come back to life after dying? Did Caesar Augustus enter peoples brains and speak with them through magical methods? Did Caesar August magically heal the sick? Give me a break. Such a comparison fails the test. By the way there is more evidence for his existence.

I'll admit, though, that the final verses in Mark, which describe the resurrection appearances are not part of the original text. But still, Mark clear knows of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark predicts the resurrection in five places, and he reports the testimony of the angel to the resurrection, the empty tomb, and the imminent appearance of Jesus in Galilee. In fact, Mark's reference to Peter in Mark 16:7 may be the very same appearance reported in the creed just mentioned.



On more thing. Most scholars believe Mark is the earliest Gospel, but we have an even earlier report about the resurrection: The 1 Corinthians 15 creed that I mentioned. This clearly spells out various post-Easter appearances by Jesus, including at one point to five hundred people.

Then we have the writings of the apostolic fathers, who were said to have known the apostles or were close to others who did. There's a strong likelihood that their writings reflect the teachings of the apostles themselves, and what do they say? That the apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus' resurrection.

Consider Clement, for example. The early church father Irenaeus reports that the Clement had conversed with the apostles, in fact, Irenaeus commented that h "might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes." Tertullian, the African church father, said Clement was ordained by Peter himself.

In Clement's letter to the Corinthian church, which was written in the first century, he writes: "Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit's certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come."

Then we have Polycarp. Irenaeus says that Polycarp was "instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ," including John; that he "recalled their very words"; and that he "always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles." Tertullian confirms that John appointed Polycarp as bishop of the church in Smyrna.

Around AD 110, Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippian church in which he mentions the resurrection of Jesus no fewer than five times. He was referring to Paul and other apostles when he said: "For they did not love the present age, but him who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God."
Source(s):
We know that because we have evidence that the disciples had been transformed to the point where they were willing to endure persecution and even martyrdom. We find this in multiple accounts inside and outside the New Testament.

Just read through Acts and you'll see how the disciples were willing to suffer for their conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. The church fathers Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Origen, they all confirm this. In fact, we've got at least seven early sources testifying that the disciples willingly suffered in defense of their beliefs, and if we include the martyrdoms of Paul and Jesus' half-brother James, we have eleven sources.

There is a word I am grasping for!!!!?!?!?! Ummm? Hearsay oh ya.

Even atheist Ludemann conceded: "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Now, he claims this this was the result of visions, which I simply don't believe is a credible explanation. But he's conceding that their experiences actually occurred.

Here is this idiot quote mining again. He thinks it is meaningful to find atheists who agree with him. What he forgets to offer is the exact context of the statement and the conclusion reached along with the reason they arrived at such a conclusion.

Really aren't you tired of this stupid bullshit - 'mining my argument'? Why do all modern day theists seem to do this? I am not sure if I have ever seen so common in any other sphere of study. Their theories are this weak they wish to quote those who disagree to build some type of sack of shit man - straw men don't splatter like this crap.

As Paula Fredriksen of Boston University put it, and, again, she's not an evangelical but a very liberal scholar: "I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they say. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."


In fact, Fredriksen says elsewhere that "the disciples' conviction that they had seen the risen Christ... is [part of] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting." I think that's pretty much undeniable, and I believe the evidence is clear and convincing that what they saw was the return of Jesus from the dead. And they we're not done yet, we've got three more minimal facts to consider.

Here's minimal fact number three. We know from multiple sources that Paul, who was then known as Saul of Tarsus, was an enemy of the church and committed to persecuting the faithful. But Paul himself says that he was converted to a follower of Jesus because he had personally encountered the resurrected Jesus. So we have Jesus' resurrection attested by a friend and foe alike, which is very significant.

Then we have six ancient sources in addition to Paul, such as Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen, reporting that Paul was willing to suffer continuously and even die for his beliefs. Also, lairs make poor martyrs. So we can be confident that Paul not only claimed the risen Jesus appeared to him, but that he really believed it.

The next minimal fact involves James, the half-brother of Jesus. Some people might be surprised that Jesus had siblings. Well, the Gospels tell us that Jesus had at least four half-brothers, James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, as well as half-sisters whose names we don't know. The Jewish historian Josephus, in a section most historians regard as authentic, refers to "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James."

In the second century, Hegesippus reports that James was a pious Jew who strictly abided by the Jewish law. But more significantly for our purposes, we also have good evidence that James was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. How do we know?

Mark and John both report that none of Jesus' brothers believed in him. In fact, John's passage is particularly interesting. It suggests that his brothers had heard about his alleged miracles but didn't believe the reports and were, in a sense, daring their brother to perform them in front of crowds. They were sort of taunting him! Why do people consider the skepticism of Jesus' brothers to be authentic?

Because the principle of embarrassment. People are not going to invent a story that's going be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them, and it would be particularly humiliating for a first-century rabbi not to have his own family as his followers.

At the crucifixion, to whom does Jesus entrust the care of his mother? Not to one of his half-brothers, who would be the natural choice, but to John, who was a believer. Why on earth would he do that? I think the inference is very strong: If James or any of his brothers had been believers had been believers, they would have gotten the nod instead. So it's reasonable to conclude that none of them was a believer, and Jesus was more concerned with his mother being entrusted into the hands of a spiritual brother.

Then, however, the pivotal moment occurs: The ancient creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that the risen Jesus appeared to James. Again, this is an extremely early account that has all the earmarks of reliability. In fact, James may have been involved in passing along this creed to Paul, in which case James would be personally endorsing what the creed reports about him.

As a result of his encounter with the risen Jesus, James doesn't just become a Christian, but he later becomes leader of the Jerusalem church. We know this from Acts and Galatians. Actually, James was so thoroughly convinced of Jesus' Messiahship because of the resurrection that he died as a martyr, as both Christian and non-Christian sources attest.

So here we have another example of a skeptic who was converted because of a personal encounter with the resurrected Lord and was willing to die for his convictions. In fact, critical scholar Reginald Fuller said that even if we didn't have 1 Corinthians 15 account, "we should have to invent" such as resurrection appearance to account for James' conversion and his elevation to the pastorate of the Jerusalem church, which was the center of ancient Christianity.

Although the fifth fact, the tomb of Jesus was empty, is part of the minimal case for the resurrection, it doesn't enjoy the nearly universal consensus among scholars that the first four do. Still, there's strong evidence in its favor.

Gary Habermas determined that about 75 percent of scholars on the subject regard it has a historical fact. That's quite a large majority. Personally, I think the empty tomb is very well supported if the historical data are assessed without preconceptions. Basically, there are three strands of evidence: The Jerusalem factor, enemy attestation, and the testimony of women.

The Jerusalem factor refers to the fact that Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem and then his resurrection was proclaimed in the very same city. In fact, several weeks after the crucifixion, Peter declares to a crowd right there in Jerusalem: "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact." Frankly, it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if Jesus' body were still in the tomb, viewed his corpse, and the misunderstanding would have been over. But there's no indication that this occurred.

Instead, what we do hear is enemy attestation to the empty tomb. In other words, what were the skeptics saying? That the disciples stole the body. This is reported not only by Matthew, but also by Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Here's the thing: Why would you say someone stole the body if it were still in the tomb? This is an implicit admission that the tomb was empty.

In addition, we have the testimony of women that the tomb was empty. Not only were women the first to discover the vacant grave, but they are mentioned in all four Gospels, whereas male witnesses appear only later and in two of them.

This is important because in both first-century Jewish and Roman cultures, women were lowly esteemed and their testimony was considered questionable. They were certainly considered less credible than men. For example, the Jewish Talmud says, "Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women," and, "Any evidence which a women [gives] is not valid [to offer]." Josephus said, "But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex."

So this is another example of the criterion of embarrassment. The best theory for why the Gospel writers would include such an embarrassing detail is because that's what actually happened and they were committed to recording it accurately, regardless of the credibility problem it created in that culture.

So when you consider the Jerusalem factor, the enemy attestation, the testimony of women, there are good historical reasons for concluding Jesus' tomb was empty. William Ward of Oxford University put it this way: "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history."

Kill All The

http://filthyrag.com/blog/2008/12/video-little-white-girl-says-kill-all-the-niggers/ - caution racist (seriously).

Don't you find a mantra of this nature disgusting? Doesn't it make you cringe?

Yet, we believe it is acceptable for us to teach children their friends will suffer more serious punishment than anything any ignorant KKK or inbred Kentuckian mom could ever dish out.

Yet you are not disgusted when parents teach their own children an invisible thing monitors their thoughts from the sky. If they do not worship properly, as laid out in a 2,000 year old book, written by ancient sand strewn men the child will suggest the same consequences.

Yet you view it as acceptable for parents to rip their children out of school so they can more effectively instill 'racist' doctrine into their minds for the next 12 years?

The KKK pales in comparison to the thing christians call god. No other thing on earth has caused more social friction than this monster.

To make matters worse parents frequently force children to wear a symbol which predates their religion with the dead carcass of their impotent god upon it.

How is this type of brainwashing any different that what happens on our planet millions of times a year?

Toleration is assassination.
AT

Religion Is Stupid

I do not believe religion should be tucked away for personal use only. Religion has nothing positive to offer any society wishing to not move backward. There is nothing a theist can do because of their theism that can not be accomplished by a non-theist. Without the need to stop, grovel and pray one might argue non-theists can accomplish many things in a more timely fashion(improving ROI - no wasted time) with same or better results. Several thousand religions and years later there truly are only 3 (some say six) major religions competing on a global scale for the minds of children and wallets of all others.

The final 3 religions like the thousands before must be done away with. Without empathy or pity the necessary action is tossing the books, ideas and concepts into the fire. As this ambitious goal is in action people who choose to hang on to beliefs whipped up by ancient superstitious sand strewn men must be recognized as delusional, irrational and in need of help. Society for the welfare and protection of the sane & rational medicates or institutionalizes people for the same reason(s) theism is praised and cherished for - what the hell?

Religion is a collaboration of worthless, meaningless, asinine, stupid, false, unnecessary, dangerous and outdated ideas & concepts. Driven by numerous core values, traits and thoughts that are all recognized by modern psychology as obvious signs (not potential) signs of serious mental illnesses. They are to be treated as such.

The beliefs of religion are stupid. The person who holds them is delusional. Regardless of your relationship with the person: co-worker, parent, friend or stranger this does not and must not impact the fact religion is stupid as are the beliefs!

I have no solution but I believe we are wasting resources.

What is the point in debating people with stupid beliefs, what is the purpose. We as non-theists number more than people in the military, the US being a global military power. As far as I am aware although we ought not be proud the US has 'locked down' more than any other - non-theists out number the incarcerated. Per group there are more non-theists than Jews, Homosexuals, NRA members and African Americans. We do not need to call upon more recruits we need to command change with who we have!

In no sphere of human knowledge, information or study would a person who falls so short of being rational be welcomed to debate, speak or share ideas. Well, no sphere but religion. Why bow to this trump card? Just because it is a mass delusion it should not merit our respect. If we could mobilize all of the non-theists in the country with the numbers we have the much needed changes could be commanded. Yet, thousands of individuals waste tens of thousands of hours using millions of words debating & writing about why theism is wrong. Hundreds more spend thousands of hours putting together extraordinary and poetic multimedia presentations on Youtube.

Theists make absolute claims for which absolutely no evidence exists. The arguments presented to non-theists typically are not new. Arguments theists have presented surely are not new and have been refuted thousands of times for thousands of years. The information necessary for theists to recognize their beliefs are irrational is and has been available. Typically their beliefs are not impacted by logic. . .

An invisible uncreated thing created the known universe ex-nihlo using magical powers. It exists in an unknown location(it was once believed above the clouds). The exact time of creation is unknown and its reason for creation is debatable.

add to that

It planted a undiscovered magical garden with the first man to tend it. The thing(god) allows a talking snake to tempt its creation with lust & knowledge, I often wondered who was responsible for recording this contemporary story. Standing by a busy street if we roll a ball across a highway it should be our expectation a child without knowledge will crawl after it. Rather than understanding the complexity of the situation god put its creation into it becomes angry and curses everyone scaring them for eternity. Fast Forward..... God then transforms himself into his son. As he walks on earth as his son he still rules in heaven too. He has himself born of a virgin women, earlier he decided to curse flesh. A natural birth would have been too disgusting for such a glorious god. After his virgin birth he mysteriously disappears for 30 years - good thing CSI wasn't around. As he is growing up as a child on earth he is happily sitting at his throne as himself in a magical place. The son god transformed himself into becomes known as Jesus.
-Although not mentioned I speculate while Jesus ages on earth- the god in heaven, the one who transformed himself into his son in the shape of a man, does not age.
It is Jesus' job to save humanity from the curse that he put on them a few thousand years earlier - he did this before he was inclined to transform himself into his son. So Jesus runs all around causing havoc. Eventually he is captured and placed on trial. He allows himself to be whipped, humiliated, beaten, spat upon, mocked & nailed to a cross. Fast Forward..... He dies, comes back to life, rises to heaven on a cloud and has not been seen since. Is he still his own son or did he transform himself back into himself, I wonder? This was gods master plan, it worked out perfectly. Now, all one needs to do is love, worship, pray to, respect & believe in Jesus and they go to a place known as heaven.
-There are at least 3,500 denominations of Christianity. We are told all these denominations argue over trivial, small or stupid details. REALLY? 3,500 is an alarming number

Adding To That

It shares a personal and loving connection with us. It is able to receive, listen to and prioritize billions of messages instantly. It does this through a method known as prayer. Sometimes it interacts violating the natural law it created other times(the vast majority) it remains hidden and silent as if it did not exist. The reasons why it chooses such a small minority of the telepathic requests to respond is completely unknown(I speculate it does not exist). As mentioned above if we love the son it transformed itself into we can live in a place known as heaven forever. We live in heaven because an invisible, non-material, mysterious & undetectable part of our body is sucked away(drawn) to this location at our death. It is in this place we remain for ever - even if we change our mind. While there we can see all the dead people we once loved if they are not suffering in hell. One of the neatest things about this place is it never becomes crowded.


Even with serious demythologization that is stupid. The only reason people wish to tell us it is a story is because they realize how irrational it is to believe this nonsense. Resources to directly challenge & demonstrate this religion is irrational have existed for hundreds of years. If the christian is so inclined it is not necessary we spoon feed them the information -www.google.com works wonders.

This must not become a battle for converts. Unlike religion the number of minds we capture is not something we hinge our case upon. 14,000,000 + non-theists outnumber many. I am not remotely suggesting any means of physical force. However, I do not see value in spending time, money, energy or resources debating theism or attempting to rescue the lost.

I am not really sure what we do instead of debating - I do know it seems unnecessary at this point.

Yes, yes - always talk, share, communicate. Always offer the benefit of the doubt that when you show people that their core beliefs are meaningless they will come around or be open to what you have to say. If they do not, truth does not hinge on conversion of sheep, like you would in any situation walk away:

So What

With that said I will not debate the following:

• Ignorance of Religion
• Fact of Evolution

However, what I am going to do is keep a running track of my personal thoughts to share with my daughter and her religious friends. Thanks

AT