Bible is not evidence of the existence of Jesus!! t. fedoratipper

>bible is not evidence of the existence of Jesus!! t. fedoratipper
Bible is a collection of texts by different writers from the time of Jesus and early Christianity. The oldest pieces of texts are from 1st Century and are the same that is on modern bible. Plus there are texts by authors like Tacitus that talk about Jesus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus#Mara_bar_Sarapion. Christianity is the most truthful and red pilled religion there is and Jesus truly is the son of God.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus#Mara_bar_Sarapion
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

lalallallalallalall i'm not listening

If Jesus wasn't looking like Aragorn that picture would be 10/10

>Bible is a collection of texts by different writers from the time of Jesus and early Christianity. The oldest pieces of texts are from 1st Century and are the same that is on modern bible.
How is that proof jesus existed? It was written decades after the events reported happened, by people who heard about Jesus through word of mouth.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus#Mara_bar_Sarapion
>Sometime between 73 CE and the 3rd century, Mara wrote a letter to his son (also called Sarapion) which may contain an early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.
>73 CE and 3rd century
You dumb fuck the link you posted is an even more distant 2nd hand source than the bible.

> Plus there are texts by authors like Tacitus that talk about Jesus
>The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. CE 116)
>CE 116
What the fuck is wrong with you do you even read things before you start shouting about how you proof your world view is the definitive one?

i too, believe in flying spaghetti monsters

>How is that proof jesus existed? It was written decades after the events reported happened, by people who heard about Jesus through word of mouth.
Gospels were written by the disciplines of Jesus, they wrote them when they were old like probably on their 60's.

1. The bible isn't proof of itself circular logic brainlet.
2. If we are allowed to cite Wikipedia, then even it doubts that the apostles actually wrote the gospels and not all gospels are even attributed to apostles in the first place.

The authors didn't usually leave their mark on it because christians were attacked by romans and jews so they hid their name from them. There's more proof of Jesus than there are many other historical figures and bible was copied more than any other ancient book and when you compare them to parts of oldest writings here and there they match.

...

>all history is circular logic
You aren't as smart as you think, Sargon.

What? What are you talking about? Tacitus didn't write a single word about Jesus.

>pic related

He wrote that he was executed by Pontius Pilates

No, he wrote that some guy called Chrestus was executed by Pontius Pilate.

Go back and read the sources. Getting all your information from Wikipedia just makes you look like an idiot.

>The authors didn't usually leave their mark on it because christians were attacked by romans and jews so they hid their name from them
So if Mark just wrote, by Mark the Apostle, that would give him away because now the Romans know exactly which Mark to kill? That is a lame excuse. Either way means it isn't "proof", even if it was a first hand source because he could write anything, which is why non-christian sources are important.

>There's more proof of Jesus than there are many other historical figures
Ok... pretty irrelevant. We don't say those historical figures are the savior of mankind and can undo death.

>and bible was copied more than any other ancient book and when you compare them to parts of oldest writings here and there they match.
Not proof. Also you can make an identical statement about the Quran.

The most recent source on there is 20 years after his death. I'm starting to think you didn't read my first post.

>You aren't as smart as you think
I don't have to be smart to know you are stupid.
We have lots of things from the past written down that we don't take at face value, we take them seriously because we find physical evidence or lots of corroborating reports from different viewpoints that say something similar.
The bible being true because the bible says it's true is circular logic.

>Ok... pretty irrelevant. We don't say those historical figures are the savior of mankind and can undo death.
or say we know 100% for certain they existed.

>or say we know 100% for certain they existed.
But we know 100% for certain that Jesus didn't exist. The Apostle Paul said so, and his letters have survived.

If some messenger speaking with Latin accent comes and tells him "this man christ was killed" you think Tacitus can't make mistake at it's pronouncing and when the original name was said in aramaic?

Matthew and John were written by those apostles. Mark was written by Peter's scribe (Peter being an apostle.) Luke was written by Luke, who explicitly says at the start that he gathered it from eyewittnesses, and Acts (also written by Luke) contains things he was himself an eyewitness to.) None of the authors directly attributed the work to themselves, as they were being humble, but it is obvious e.g. that John was written by John, because it says it was written by "the beloved disciple", and when he lists the apostles, he writes "the beloved disciple" rather than John. (Also the style of writing is the same as the letters John wrote.) Etc, etc.

And there is good evidence to show these things were written early: e.g. no-one mentions the hugely important destruction of the temple, which occurred in 70AD, nor the death of Peter or Paul, despite them mentioning other deaths.

It could be a mis-spelling of "Christ" (and this wasn't the only time it happened)

But there were literally thousands of people running around the ancient near east claiming to be the Messiah. Tacitus could have been writing about any of them.

>No, he wrote that some guy called Chrestus was executed by Pontius Pilate.
Heh, you must be aware that when writing in another language, people's names are written and pronounced slightly differently, right? They didn't even use the same alphabet.

>Mark was written by Peter's scribe (Peter being an apostle.

You don't know who wrote the Gospel of Mark and neither does anyone else.

> Luke was written by Luke, who explicitly says at the start that he gathered it from eyewittnesses

Luke didn't gather anything from eyewitnesses. He copied it all from Matthew, word for word in many cases.

> no-one mentions the hugely important destruction of the temple
Apart from the Gospel of Mark which LITERALLY DESCRIBES THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE and the other three who LITERALLY COPY HIM

>Union soldier is present bowing to Jesus but a Christ-fearing Confederate soldier is nowhere to be seen

Right. So we have no idea who Tacitus was writing about. You don't know, I don't know, no-one knows.

Therefore you can't point to Tacitus and say, "Look! Here is evidence that Jesus really existed!"

Because, if you do that, you'll look like a retard

Wikipedia says that there is doubt that they actually wrote it and they think it was compiled later, and then someone is just saying that the apostles wrote it. I am not an expert and am unable to argue these facts in detail, but I do know that your claims of proof aren't proof.

>The bible being true because the bible says it's true is circular logic.
Did even one person say that in this thread? While I know a few Christians do think that way, that sounds more like the sort of strawman that makes atheists feel like they don't have to deal with the better arguments. I.e. a false panacea.

If you renounced your religion, what would happen to your social circle?

I don't recall anything about Chrestus was executed by Pilate.
Tacitus said some followers of Chrestus were stirring up trouble in Rome.
Maybe he was talking about Christians or maybe there was some minor political/pleb squabble happening

Fuck, I loved watching that debate unfold. Bravo good man.

Wow, saved. This picture is amazing.

I'm having difficulty keeping my thoughts in order, as my dog just farted and I'm literally asphyxiating

>You don't know who wrote the Gospel of Mark and neither does anyone else.
Early writers say it was Mark, Peter's scribe. And that it was from Peter's perspective is obvious when you read it.

>Luke didn't gather anything from eyewitnesses. He copied it all from Matthew, word for word in many cases.
You clearly didn't put much thought into this. Matthew was one of the eyewitnesses, and Luke got some of his info from Matthew, obviously. It certainly isn't all from Matthew, though there is a lot from Matthew.

>Apart from the Gospel of Mark which LITERALLY DESCRIBES THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE
Nope. Try actually reading it. Jesus points to the intact temple and talks of it's future destruction. Why does no-one brag about this? Because it hadn't happened yet, when they wrote these accounts and letters down.

I think I'm mixing up Suetonius and Tacitus. My bad, user

>Jesus didn't exist
All real historians don't question his existence
>the bible is fake
fedora-tards don't even know the bible doesn't say its all history
>Christians are dumb
we built western civ and continue to
>atheists are cool
Atheists are just a bunch of pussies that don't want to submit to their creator
>Atheism is better
Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao.... yeah right

Yes the temple was destroyed like Jesus said (1st century by romans) and jews are still weeping over it

>Right. So we have no idea who Tacitus was writing about. You don't know, I don't know, no-one knows.
Thanks for the textual deconstructionism, but no, in practice, it was a well known usage of the name in the time of Tacitus, so it probably does refer to Jesus.

Jesus was a LARPing faggot, who lied and contradicted himself constantly. Case in point:
>Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
>So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”
>Then the detachment of troops and the captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound Him. (John 18:10-12)

>Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?”
>Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:35-36)

>but I do know that your claims of proof aren't proof.
You will never have proof on any historical claims. This isn't formal logic or mathematics. At most you'll have evidence, and the historical evidence is much better than for most things historians believe.

As a side note, why would anyone take Wikipedia's opinion as meaning something? Of course some people doubt it; some of those people are in this thread right now. That's independent of how good the evidence is.

Pretty sure. Also, one can believe in Christ or whatever but to say there is direct evidence is just foolish. Not saying that's your stance, but there exists no evidence of him outside of those with bias. That's just a fact and I can't believe so many people argue about it. Like if there was proof there would be no argument. No one claims Alexander didn't live. No one claims Cicero didn't live. Why? Because there is direct fucking evidence. Now look at Romulus. No evidence he existed so we don't give a shit if he did or didn't, the story is just a story. Like the Jesus story. Some people believed in Romulus and some people believe in Jesus, but there is just no evidence.

>Early writers say it was Mark, Peter's scribe.

Nope. That's just a much later tradition. The early writers are silent on the authorship of the gospels. (If you want to argue this point, I hope you've read the sources, because I have.)

>Matthew was one of the eyewitnesses,
Matthew doesn't claim to be an eyewitness or even imply that he was one. You're just making stuff up now.

> Jesus points to the intact temple and talks of it's future destruction.
Nope. The Gospel writers, writing after the destruction, put those words into Jesus' mouth in order to sound more authentic and edgy.

Making accurate prophecies is pretty easy when you're writing after the predicted events have taken place.

>Did even one person say that in this thread?
I'm assuming that you are assuming the bible is proof of itself because otherwise your argument makes no sense as it being definite proof.
If you accept the bible isn't proof of itself then you accept there is no reason to believe outside of tradition that the gospels were actually written by the disciples, and the only non-Christian sources are 2nd hand sources written decades later.

The possibility exists that Jesus is a distorted story that may or may not have been made up entirely to support some Jewish messiah cult founded by 12 guys.

>All real historians don't question his existence
Real historians don't get jobs in bible studies departments. They're all zealots and theologians.

>Atheists are just a bunch of pussies that don't want to submit to their creator
Refusing to submit to your creator is LITERALLY the bravest thing a mortal could possibly do

>Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao.... yeah right
Stalin trained as a catholic priest.

Gospel of Mark was written 4 years before the destruction

>definite proof.
Bleh I forgot OP was originally just talking about evidence.

Anyway evidence is still severely shaky and the idea that jesus was entirely made up is plausible IMO.

LOOK!!! The fucking tenth Christian/Athiest thread in an hour!!!

Fucking shareblue shills. Imagine that, using a Jew engineered religion to divide the masses. Reaaalllllyyyy makes you think. SAGE motherfucker!

>Stalin was a Catholic therefore he was a catholic when he went fully commie dictatorship murdering Christians

Also he was supposed to be Orthodox.

>it was a well known usage of the name in the time of Tacitus

Wow, nice logic! "Lots of people were called Chrestus, therefore this one probably is Jesus!"

>At most you'll have evidence, and the historical evidence is much better than for most things historians believe.

There is literally NO SURVIVING EVIDENCE for Jesus' life and teachings. Stop making things up.

>Nope. That's just a much later tradition. The early writers are silent on the authorship of the gospels.
Meh, not that much later. But it doesn't matter, because there's nothing significant in Mark that isn't also in Matthew and John.

>Matthew doesn't claim to be an eyewitness or even imply that he was one.
Except that it says Matthew was present...

>The Gospel writers, writing after the destruction, put those words into Jesus' mouth in order to sound more authentic and edgy.
100% speculation without any evidence. Isn't that what you were accusing me of?

>Gospel of Mark was written 4 years before the destruction

"Mark had psychic powers and he knew the Temple would be destroyed even before the Jews started their rebellion"

It sounds pretty stupid when someone else summarises it, doesn't it, user?

No, in Gospel of Mark it is written that Jesus said it would be destroyed and it was

>>The early writers are silent on the authorship of the gospels.
>Meh, not that much later.
The first surviving writings discussing authorship of the gospels are 4th century, as far as I remember. Not sure though.

>Except that it says Matthew was present...
Nonsense. It doesn't say that at all and, even if it did, why would we believe it? Matthew was written 60 or 70 years after Jesus' supposed death, or maybe much later

>100% speculation without any evidence.
100% of ancient prophecies that came true were actually written after the events they describe. There's not a single counter-example. Book of Daniel is the famous example, but there are limitless others.

>'m assuming that you are assuming the bible is proof of itself because otherwise your argument makes no sense as it being definite proof.
>If you accept the bible isn't proof of itself then you accept there is no reason to believe outside of tradition that the gospels were actually written by the disciples, and the only non-Christian sources are 2nd hand sources written decades later.
No, the evidence that various things in the Bible are true doesn't come from "the Bible says it's true so it is". They come from a variety of source, such as archaeology, consistency across writers, matching what's now known about the natural history of the earth, honesty about one's own faults, etc. Yours is just a common strawman.

>The possibility exists that Jesus is a distorted story that may or may not have been made up entirely to support some Jewish messiah cult founded by 12 guys.
It's possible that I'm not talking to you right now, and this is all a dream, while robots harvest my energy. But possibility doesn't imply likelihood.

>No, in Gospel of Mark it is written that Jesus said it would be destroyed and it was

What is more likely - Mark had psychic powers to foresee future events, or Mark was writing after the destruction of the temple?

Think carefully before you answer.

Think carefully before you answer.

>There is literally NO SURVIVING EVIDENCE for Jesus' life and teachings.
If you were in a courtroom, and just kept screaming that the other side has LITERALLY NO EVIDENCE, despite having offered dozens of items, can you see how the jury might just learn to ignore you?

>blah blah blah
All the "evidence" you guys keep offering either doesn't mention Jesus at all or was written 150 years later

It's obvious from your posts that you don't really know even the first things about the subject. You don't know about Matthew's presence being in the narratives, nor do you know that the claim wasn't "Mark having psychic powers", but instead Jesus knowing future events because God told him. You just end up in low-level fedora land; not even intelligent fedora land.

>They come from a variety of source, such as archaeology

There is virtually no archeological evidence supporting the claims of bible authors, OT or NT. (Unfortuantely.)

>consistency across writers
When one write copies another, that's not "consistency". That's just "copying".

>matching what's now known about the natural history of the earth
CREATIONIST DETECTED! UNHOLSTER YOUR BANANAS!

>Enter the low hum of Lord of the rings theme song

Where does archeology substantiate any supernatural event in the new testament?

> consistency across writers
The gospels were not all written at the same time, why is someone copying stories from one book while also having completely unique stories evidence?

>matching what's now known about the natural history of the earth
Fictional stories are allowed to incorporate non-fictional elements. If I wrote a story about Wizards in the Civil War you couldn't say that the fact my book was right about the civil war proves the wizards were true.

> honesty about one's own faults
Not proof

Why didn't Tacitus document any of his supposed miracles? We have Roman tax records of the period but nothing about a man turning water into wine or rising from the dead?

>It's possible that I'm not talking to you right now, and this is all a dream, while robots harvest my energy. But possibility doesn't imply likelihood.

Swap out that ridiculous theory you typed with the one you actually believe and see which explanation sounds more sane.

>You don't know about Matthew's presence being in the narratives
What are you talking about? There is a Matthew in Mark 9, but nowhere does the Gospel author claim to be him.

That's like saying Donald Trump and Donald Duck are probably the same person.

>Where does archeology substantiate any supernatural event in the new testament?
How is that even possible? How does the supernatural event become substantiated? The closest thing I can think of is the secular archaeology who unearthed Sodom and found evidence of severe heat damage (which he attributed possibly to activity from space). But in all such cases, atheists can just affirm the minimum they want and say "but that doesn't mean it was supernatural."

>> consistency across writers
>The gospels were not all written at the same time, why is someone copying stories from one book while also having completely unique stories evidence?
What I'm referring to, is how humans will take the writings of past beloved writers and twist them to suit their current goals. But through the many, many centuries the Prophets (and Jesus) have the same goal and same description of what God wants. That's a consistency that I haven't seen elsewhere in the world. Minor evidence, but still.

>>matching what's now known about the natural history of the earth
>Fictional stories are allowed to incorporate non-fictional elements. If I wrote a story about Wizards in the Civil War you couldn't say that the fact my book was right about the civil war proves the wizards were true.
But they didn't know those things back then. E.g. the didn't know the universe came into existence a finite time ago, and they didn't know that sea life predates reptiles which predate mammals which predate man, and they didn't know that the earth used to be just water without land, etc. It is an accurate description of what happened, from a time when they didn't know these details.

>Why didn't Tacitus document any of his supposed miracles?
Because Tacitus was writing about some bloke called Chrestus who might not even have been a religious figure at all, much less Jesus.

>Swap out that ridiculous theory you typed with the one you actually believe and see which explanation sounds more sane.
If I did that, I wouldn't believe quantum physics, special relativity, general relativity, solid state physics, q. field theory, big bang cosmology, or the existence of black holes. Sometimes my reason leads me to believe things I had previously thought ridiculous.

>the Prophets (and Jesus) have the same goal and same description of what God wants.
That's not very surprising. Paul got a lot of his ideas directly from Old Testament documents, and the gospel writers got EVERYTHING they wrote from the OT

What does Tacitus prove? It is written a hundred years after the event was supposed to happen and it isn't even clear he was talking about Christians in that one page reference..

>Gospels were written by the disciplines of Jesus

No they weren't.

>How is that even possible? How does the supernatural event become substantiated?
Exactly, everything from the bible that there is evidence of is just mundane shit that we would expect to be there, like a city, or a bath house a Jesus story allegedly occurred at.

>That's a consistency that I haven't seen elsewhere in the world.
Muslims keep their shit pretty consistent.

>. the didn't know the universe came into existence a finite time ago
Every creation story that I know of involves a first event on some vague timeline.
>and they didn't know that sea life predates reptiles which predate mammals which predate man
Yea they thought god did it in 6 days a few thousand years ago because that is what the book says.

All of those things are well documented, precisely explained, and the applications and methodology behind observing and understanding these things are written out in a way that can be replicated. None of that applies to the bible.

>Muslims keep their shit pretty consistent.
I wonder if you have read the Koran? I haven't, but I gather it's not even written in a single language. And it's full of inconsistencies and blatant borrowings from other religious traditions.

christianity is a jewish sect. kikes most popular bait. if you fall for it, it's just natural selection

tfw not a christian but really can't stand athiest reddit trash like pic related

LOL THIS IS TRUE AND I'M AN ATHEIST. I AGREE YET I STILL CHOOSE TO STRAY FROM THE TRUE PATH. WHY?

OH WELL.

ROCK ON MAN, HAHA. I'M ON THE HIIIIIIIIGHWAYYYY TO HELL!!

O.. WAIT..

OUR BIG MAN UPSTAIRS IS AN AWESOME BIG MAN UPSTAIRS, HE REIGNS FROM HEAVEN ABOVE... HAHA YEAH THERE WE GO.

ROCK ON MAN!

>All real historians don't question his existence

What does this even mean? History is a political shit-show of a field, hence 7 gorillion jews.

A lot of so called historians on the topic aren't trained historians, they are bible scholars trained on textual criticism...receiving much of their training from believing Christians that aren't objective. Fitzgerald showed many of them are contractually obliged with a written "testimony of faith" which bounds their public discourse and research.

>we built western civ and continue to
Oh, you're just retarded then. Western Civ predates Christianity and even predates the Hindu Kali Yuga.

>using a Jew engineered religion to divide the masses

This. This is right out of Rules for Radicals.

> I haven't, but I gather it's not even written in a single language.
100% false, it is used in modern times for Arabic grammar study.

>blatant borrowings from other religious traditions.
Like how Jesus is just a carbon copy of Zoroaster?

Could be worse.

>100% false, it is used in modern times for Arabic grammar study.

100% true. Or, at least 51% true. Haven't you read Luxenberg?

>And it's full of inconsistencies
Also I can't attest to this but we weren't talking about internal consistency anyway, just the fact that through time it has not been changed.

The bible is a fabrication of lies told to us for the last six thousand years.
THE END

>>That's a consistency that I haven't seen elsewhere in the world.
>Muslims keep their shit pretty consistent.
No, they don't. I've never met a muslim who believed what Mohammad did, they take it in many different directions.

>Every creation story that I know of involves a first event on some vague timeline.
Most creation stories are not about the creation of the universe, only the origin of some aspect. (I've read a lot of Greek, Norse, and other pagan mythology.) But sure, this one is a minor point.

>>and they didn't know that sea life predates reptiles which predate mammals which predate man
>Yea they thought god did it in 6 days a few thousand years ago because that is what the book says.
Actually, it doesn't say that. There are seven days in which Moses details the creation and resting, and most people took that to mean the creation itself took 6 days. But it is also consistent with Moses receiving the vision over 7 days on Mount Sinai. The thousands of years is speculation, which is understandable, but apparently wrong (it's based on adding up the ages of mentioned individuals), unless Adam really was recent and that there were other humans existing at the time (a concept which is supported by Genesis itself by mentioning humans other than Adam's family.)

In any event, when 98% of something is correct, you don't just throw it out because of the 2%; that's the marxist's trick. Instead you try to figure out that 2%.

>Also I can't attest to this but we weren't talking about internal consistency anyway, just the fact that through time it has not been changed.

Not necessarily true. There were a great number of textual variants in circulation during the first couple of centuries of Islam; it's not the single unified text transmitted via the Angel Gabriel that muslims would have us believe.

the bible isn't evidence of the existence of yahshua. the new testament is a collection of experiences testifying to the existence of yahshua, and preaching the benefits of seeking salvation through yahshua. the "evidence" of the existence of yahshua comes from dedicated spiritual practice and exercise that atheists and many agnostics are frightened of pursuing.

spirituality is no different from science. it requires years of experience before you can even begin to understand just how wrong you are with your assumptions, and from there you begin to refine your understanding, whether it's christianity, buddhism, or otherwise.

Amen brother may his light shine on this dark corner of the internet and in the hearts of anons where hate resides and not love to show them the truth. Peace.

>I've never met a muslim who believed what Mohammad did
wtf point are you even trying to make? Muslims don't believe Islam?

>creation of the universe, only origin
Obviously in the void god was there, are we just supposed to assume god was just hanging out the entire time until he decided to create a place?

>98%
nice arbitrary number. I breathed through my nose when I read that. I'll think about that when I banish menstruating women from my home and hide under a lightning rod when masturbating.

Can some one post that meme where it shows Christianity society vs atheist reality pls

>even KANGZ in the backround.
Some memes are starting to travel through time.

looks like an aztec dude to me

>wtf point are you even trying to make? Muslims don't believe Islam?
The consistency of the Prophets and Jesus means something because of the many writers claiming to be able to speak with God, and yet remaining consistent. Muslim's only have Mohammad, and that is only one man being consistent with himself. So the same argument doesn't apply to Islam.

>Obviously in the void god was there, are we just supposed to assume god was just hanging out the entire time until he decided to create a place?
When the world already exists, and the "creation" story begins with the giants being born of that world, that is not a story on the creation of the universe. (Just an e.g.)

%
>nice arbitrary number. I breathed through my nose when I read that. I'll think about that when I banish menstruating women from my home and hide under a lightning rod when masturbating.
Then you didn't understand the point. The point was that when a small part gives you trouble (6 days) but the rest matches, you don't throw out the whole thing; you look for how it can be reconciled with reality.

By the way, sarcasm is not an effective means of arriving at the truth; it is only an effective way of emotionally insulating yourself from disconcerting opposition.

Is this the one you're looking for? It shows what Europe looked like for 1200 years when the Christians were in charge

>The consistency of the Prophets and Jesus means something
It means the Gospel writers copied everything from the Old Testament

It shows a happy white Family on Christian part and faggots trannies race mixing on atheist side

>The consistency of the Prophets and Jesus means something because of the many writers claiming to be able to speak with God, and yet remaining consistent.
Explain to me how all the weird laws in leviticus, God murdering millions, and ruining the lives of even his most devout followers on purpose consistent with Jesus?

>When the world already exists,
You are in dangerous territory with these semantics.

>Muslim's only have Mohammad, and that is only one man being consistent with himself.
Jesus, Moses, Elijah and the rest of the crew are considered prophets in Islam, they just say Mohammad is God's last word.

>The point was that when a small part gives you trouble (6 days) but the rest matches
No it doesn't, it is a vague description of very large steps, and if the rest matched the it would just say there was nothing for the first 5 days.

>By the way, sarcasm is not an effective means of arriving at the truth
but making up numbers is...

I hate to ask, but how could atheist faggot trannies racemix?

I mean, if they're all biologically male, how can they have children, white or otherwise?

It showed several pics on the atheist side

>Gospels were written by the disciplines of Jesus
The book of Luke and half the New Testament was written by Saul (who claimed he was an "apostle" but never met Jesus, and never met anyone else who ever met Jesus).

>The book of Luke and half the New Testament was written by Saul
Ha ha nice trolling

It's getting a bit late though. I'm not sure I have the energy to keep laughing.

>humans will take the writings of past beloved writers and twist them to suit their current goals

They did that with the bible too. They had meetings where they cut out the most absurd or inconvenient things. Didn't the Dead Sea Scrolls have some of what they removed in it to compare with?

If those filthy degenerates hadn't spent their entire childhoods being molested by priests, they would be responsible citizens with qt wives and 2.4 white children, and not the filthy degenerates they are today

>Explain to me how all the weird laws in leviticus, God murdering millions, and ruining the lives of even his most devout followers on purpose consistent with Jesus?
I have to go here, but I'll try a quick response.
laws: a society needs laws, and they had a society with the priests on top, and so God gave them some laws. The "weirdness" derives from us not knowing the reason for some of them; that's neither here nor there. But many of the laws are just customary and not about things God hates.
murdering: when their wickedness reached a certain point, God destroyed them. I do the same in the garden with diseased sections, to be honest.
ruining the lives of devout followers: are you referring to Job? Because generally, he improves their lives. But in the end, the world doesn't exist for our pleasure, but as a harvest field for God. Jesus likewise says God will destroy the wicked, and he wouldn't abolish the laws; seems consistent to me.

>Jesus, Moses, Elijah and the rest of the crew are considered prophets in Islam, they just say Mohammad is God's last word.
Yes, they say that, but they don't actually use the writings containing what Jesus, Moses, and Elijah said, and thus it is irrelevant to them.

>No it doesn't, it is a vague description of very large steps, and if the rest matched the it would just say there was nothing for the first 5 days.
I don't understand what you're saying here, the days are in order and span the creation; all the days have content.

>>By the way, sarcasm is not an effective means of arriving at the truth
>but making up numbers is...
I didn't attribute the number 98% to anything, just to illustrate the idea of "mostly correct". You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding this, because people do this in English all the time. (98% of the time? :P)