Religions are fairy tales for children who are afraid of death. They have nothing to do with reality. There is no god and no rational reason to believe in one. Part of growing up is accepting that.
That guy is a character in a book that wasn’t written until decades after his supposed death. And those stories that made it into the book were knowingly cherry picked and modified to fit a narrative that the Romans wanted to push at the time.
The only “evidence” he rose from the dead was that someone wrote down that someone told someone else that they knew of a few people that saw an empty cave a few days after they had stuffed a corpse in it. And said book also contains a contradicting story about the same event.
That guy is a character in a book that wasn’t written until decades after his supposed death.
Wait until you hear about most of history… A lot of people we think we know were written CENTURIES after their death.
And those stories that made it into the book were knowingly cherry picked and modified to fit a narrative that the Romans wanted to push at the time.
That they were occupiers and killed the son of God? yikes
The only “evidence” he rose from the dead was that someone wrote down that someone told someone else that they knew of a few people that saw an empty cave a few days after they had stuffed a corpse in it.
No, some of the writings were first hand eyewitnesses, the rest were people who personally knew numerous people who saw Him.
And said book also contains a contradicting story about the same event.
No it doesn’t.
There’s more evidence that Spider-Man exists/ed.
No, because Spider Man is never claiming to be a true story and nobody ever claimed to be Spiderman. We also have a name - Stan Lee - who wrote the story and has no qualms saying it is fake. 2 billion people around the world don’t believe in Spiderman.
A story claiming to be true does not make it more true than one that doesn’t make that claim.
But if that’s your sticking point, Lord of the Rings. It claims to be a translation of a true story. Was Frodo real?
A story claiming to have eye witnesses to events doesn’t mean there were any, the author can say anything that makes their work sound more believable, and given that there were no other documents making those completely unbelievable claims, they remain unbelievable fictions.
It kind of sound like you are unaware of the council of nicaea…where they decided to make Jesus a divine figure, and not just a prophet, among other stories they twisted and chose to suit their needs. We may not know their exact names, but we know the group and the months they met to write this book.
A story claiming to have eye witnesses to events doesn’t mean there were any, the author can say anything that makes their work sound more believable,
If you apply this logic to everything, history falls apart. The New Testament being written by someone who was around at the time and lived close to the events is quite apparent.
and given that there were no other documents making those completely unbelievable claims, they remain unbelievable fictions.
What do you mean “no other documents”? Apart from what? The documents making the claims?
What I essentially believe you’re saying is “apart from the documents making those claims, there are no other documents making those claims”. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
It kind of sound like you are unaware of the council of nicaea…where they decided to make Jesus a divine figure, and not just a prophet, among other stories they twisted and chose to suit their needs. We may not know their exact names, but we know the group and the months they met to write this book.
I am fully aware of it, seemingly more than you since you’re regurgitating Tiktok nonsense.
The belief in Jesus’ divinity predates the Council of Nicæa. The Bible literally refers to Him as God several times. Even in the Old Testament at some points. And even in addition from that, it’s clear He is not just a prophet, but the Prophecied Messiah
We know who a lot of them were. Such as St Nicholas, St Athanasius and Arius (the reason the meeting was caused)
The council of Nicæa didn’t write any biblical book. It had very little to do with the Bible. They wrote the Nicene Creed which isn’t in the Bible, but an interpretation of the text and summary of the belief. Also possibly the Athanasius Creed. The New Testament was already completed by the early Second century at the latest
Also, correcting factual inaccuracies over the First Council of Nicæa in 325 is not being “purposefully obtuse”. Nor is asking what documents you accept and don’t, or are referring to.
How do you know that happened? You can write anything in a book. But just because it’s written down doesn’t mean that hobbits, wizards, or dragons really exist. You can’t rise from the dead. It’s fantasy. Grow up.
There is historical evidence for Napoleon. The same applies to Jesus. What does not exist is evidence for miracles, God, or other magical phenomena. Historical documents are never treated uncritically. One important criterion, for example, is plausibility. If a document states that Napoleon could breathe fire, it may say so, but it would not be recognized as historical fact. And the Bible is no more than that. A text with mythological stories for people who thought that a rainbow was a sign from God.
Seriously: how stupid do you have to be to consider hearsay stories from 2000+ years ago as empirical evidence? You don’t do that for stories from Greece, Scandinavia, Egypt, or India with their religious legends. It’s just mythology. And to be honest, it’s just embarrassing to take it seriously.
Religions are fairy tales for children who are afraid of death. They have nothing to do with reality. There is no god and no rational reason to believe in one. Part of growing up is accepting that.
Except from that guy who did miracles and stuff and rose from the dead
That guy is a character in a book that wasn’t written until decades after his supposed death. And those stories that made it into the book were knowingly cherry picked and modified to fit a narrative that the Romans wanted to push at the time.
The only “evidence” he rose from the dead was that someone wrote down that someone told someone else that they knew of a few people that saw an empty cave a few days after they had stuffed a corpse in it. And said book also contains a contradicting story about the same event.
So not exactly screaming reliable primary source…
There’s more evidence that Spider-Man exists/ed.
Wait until you hear about most of history… A lot of people we think we know were written CENTURIES after their death.
That they were occupiers and killed the son of God? yikes
No, some of the writings were first hand eyewitnesses, the rest were people who personally knew numerous people who saw Him.
No it doesn’t.
No, because Spider Man is never claiming to be a true story and nobody ever claimed to be Spiderman. We also have a name - Stan Lee - who wrote the story and has no qualms saying it is fake. 2 billion people around the world don’t believe in Spiderman.
A story claiming to be true does not make it more true than one that doesn’t make that claim.
But if that’s your sticking point, Lord of the Rings. It claims to be a translation of a true story. Was Frodo real?
A story claiming to have eye witnesses to events doesn’t mean there were any, the author can say anything that makes their work sound more believable, and given that there were no other documents making those completely unbelievable claims, they remain unbelievable fictions.
It kind of sound like you are unaware of the council of nicaea…where they decided to make Jesus a divine figure, and not just a prophet, among other stories they twisted and chose to suit their needs. We may not know their exact names, but we know the group and the months they met to write this book.
If you apply this logic to everything, history falls apart. The New Testament being written by someone who was around at the time and lived close to the events is quite apparent.
What do you mean “no other documents”? Apart from what? The documents making the claims?
What I essentially believe you’re saying is “apart from the documents making those claims, there are no other documents making those claims”. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
I am fully aware of it, seemingly more than you since you’re regurgitating Tiktok nonsense.
The belief in Jesus’ divinity predates the Council of Nicæa. The Bible literally refers to Him as God several times. Even in the Old Testament at some points. And even in addition from that, it’s clear He is not just a prophet, but the Prophecied Messiah
We know who a lot of them were. Such as St Nicholas, St Athanasius and Arius (the reason the meeting was caused)
The council of Nicæa didn’t write any biblical book. It had very little to do with the Bible. They wrote the Nicene Creed which isn’t in the Bible, but an interpretation of the text and summary of the belief. Also possibly the Athanasius Creed. The New Testament was already completed by the early Second century at the latest
You’re being purposely obtuse now.
There’s no other documents even alluding to the man’s existence besides the book of completely unbelievable bullshit fairy tales.
What book are you referring to here?
Also, correcting factual inaccuracies over the First Council of Nicæa in 325 is not being “purposefully obtuse”. Nor is asking what documents you accept and don’t, or are referring to.
How do you know that happened? You can write anything in a book. But just because it’s written down doesn’t mean that hobbits, wizards, or dragons really exist. You can’t rise from the dead. It’s fantasy. Grow up.
So Napoleon didn’t exist, then?
There is historical evidence for Napoleon. The same applies to Jesus. What does not exist is evidence for miracles, God, or other magical phenomena. Historical documents are never treated uncritically. One important criterion, for example, is plausibility. If a document states that Napoleon could breathe fire, it may say so, but it would not be recognized as historical fact. And the Bible is no more than that. A text with mythological stories for people who thought that a rainbow was a sign from God.
Seriously: how stupid do you have to be to consider hearsay stories from 2000+ years ago as empirical evidence? You don’t do that for stories from Greece, Scandinavia, Egypt, or India with their religious legends. It’s just mythology. And to be honest, it’s just embarrassing to take it seriously.