>>18630847
Except there is proof of the resurrection. All historical Bible scholars agree that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, three days later his tomb was found empty, several hundreds of his followers reported seeing him immediately after, then these followers went on the change the world radically forever. The best, most parsimonious, explanation of all these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

>>18630847
Proof isn't the metric for belief for everyone
Also, you dont want to believe God exists because it would mean you'd have to change; you don't think that it's impossible though

>>18630847
I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

File: christian is jewish.jpg (416 KB, 918x1426)

416 KB JPG

>>18630851
>Except there is proof of the resurrection
No there isn't. Nothing which can be considered objectively verifiable proof.
>All historical Bible scholars agree
No they don't lol. There is no consensus between ALL biblical scholars, on anything.
>Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate
No he wasn't.
>buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea
Which tomb precisely? Never been identified.
>three days later his tomb was found empty
That tends to happen when no body was put inside to begin with.
>several hundreds of his followers reported seeing him immediately after
There is no proof of this. Just jewish scripture saying it + people who believe in that Jewish scripture, saying they agree with the words.
>then these followers went on the change the world radically forever. The best, most parsimonious, explanation of all these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Goyim cattle coded logic.

>>18630851
Idk how to call this fallacy but you passed contraband. Cite the historical source and how it proves each of your assertions. The only thing i believe is cited is that a guy named jesus was killed. The rest is written by cultist faggots year later that couldn't get their dates straight. They tried to one up their version of the resurrection with ever more extraordinary stuff until some guy said a 500m jesus appeared and they decided it was too whacky therefore aporcyphal

>>18630853
>Proof isn't the metric for belief for everyone
Yes. You found the problem. Now how do we fix it?

>>18630863
>Nothing which can be considered objectively verifiable proof.
It's a proof by inference to the best explanation.
>There is no consensus between ALL biblical scholars, on anything.
The vast, overwhelming majority of the scholars, even the secular ones, agree on this. Only a handful of them don't.
>No he wasn't.
He was. This is also confirmed by Josephus, the historian.
>Which tomb precisely? Never been identified.
Joseph of Aramithea was a famous rich man in the Jewish Sanhedrin. His tomb was famous back then and anyone could go and check it if they wanted to. If it wasn't empty, they would call out the lie and there would be records of it.
>There is no proof of this.
Saint Paul reports this in his letters and says he knows many of them are still alive. Anyone could go to them and confirm the fact.
>Goyim cattle coded logic.
You have no argument.

>>18630874
>It's a proof by inference to the best explanation.
so not proof then, got it.

>>18630867
>Cite the historical source and how it proves each of your assertions
These are conclusions drawn from the evidence of the gospels. The gospels document the life of Jesus extensively. There is no other figure in history who had this level of documentation, not even the emperors of Rome. Josephus confirms the crucifixion by Pilate. Paul confirms the appearances to his followers.

>>18630877
IBE is used in science all the time. If you disagree with it, you have to throw out a lot of science too.

File: IMG_7139.jpg (81 KB, 750x727)

81 KB JPG

>You see cuz people were fish a loooong time ago fool
>Back in like the dinosaur times and shit
>They trusted the science though and they grew legs and shit homie
>They walked outta the ocean fool
>We all just stardust vato

File: jesus&apostles.png (624 KB, 797x925)

624 KB PNG

>>18630874
>proof by inference
That's not how "proof" works. Without objectively verifiable facts then you have no claim to proven Truth.
>The vast, overwhelming majority of the scholars, even the secular ones, agree on this
No they don't, but I can appreciate you're programmed to be mentally handicapped in this subject. You have a bias and seek to reinforce it.
>He was. This is also confirmed by Josephus, the historian.
"Confirmed" by "Josephus" lol that's not the name his mother gave him when he was born. Why don't you use his actual Semitic name? Why are Christians afraid of historical context that would undermine the jewish scripture you're desperately clinging on to as "truth"? Some would call it psychological programming. A jew saying something is true doesn't mean what they said is true, you understand that right?
>Joseph of Aramithea was a famous rich man in the Jewish Sanhedrin. His tomb was famous back then and anyone could go and check it if they wanted to. If it wasn't empty, they would call out the lie and there would be records of it.
Once again, a Jew making a claim without objectively verifiable evidence, doesn't make that claim true just by virtue of a Jew saying so. Having a famous tomb isn't evidence, and you're lying to say "anyone could go and check if they wanted to". Jews in the same cult as "Josephus" would have no problem lying alongside him, to gentiles that don't even know their Semitic names. You're such a gullible retard its tragic.
>Saint Paul reports this in his letters and says he knows many of them are still alive. Anyone could go to them and confirm the fact.
"Paul" wasn't the name his mother gave him when he was born. Nothing "Paul" said in his letters are based on objectively verifiable facts either. Once again you blindly trust the word of a Jew, on no verifiable proof, just because that Jew said something is true based on Jewish scripture.
>You have no argument.
You have no intellectual honesty.

>>18630894
>That's not how "proof" works.
See >>18630884
>No they don't,
Yes they do. Look up N. T. Wright.
>that's not the name his mother gave him
Who cares? I'm not some brainbroken Jew-hater. Come up with better arguments.
>Jews in the same cult as "Josephus" would have no problem lying alongside him
Josephus was a pharisee Jew. This sect disagreed heavily with Jesus and had no reason to report facts which would make Jesus appear in a good light. Yet, the evidence forced them to admit that these things happened.
>Once again you blindly trust the word of a Jew
Like I said, come up with a better argument. There is no reason for Paul to lie in his letters about this, when there were hundreds of eye witnesses to the resurrection.
>You have no intellectual honesty.
Back at you. Also, your rabid anti-semitism indicates that you are not operating with a rational, unbiased mind.

>>18630893
you worship a dead jew on a cross

>>18630913
>>18630863
your whole argument just boils down to "I hate Jews therefore it can't be true because it's Jew-related." This is highly illogical and to anons who are not antisemitic or are not irrationally bothered by the Jewish aspect of Jesus and his background, simply going "BUT ITS JEWISH THOUGH, YOU WOULDNT BELIEVE SOMETHING JEW-RELATED, WOULD YOU???" doesn't work as an argument.

Your hatred of Jews takes precedence over everything else for you and this is the main motivating factor and metric of all of your beliefs. You are not a rational person. I am not saying this to insult you, it is just descriptive and self-evidently true.

>>18630884
>IBE is used in science all the time.
Yeah using actual data not bronze age fairy tales. you're making an extraordinary claim that a jewish man who was actually God died and was resurrected. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have provided none other than highly dubious accounts from 2000 years ago and the first written account is from Paul's letters 20 years after Jesus's death. This is not reliable evidence that meets scientific or even historiographical standard. And even if the body of Christ did disappear, there are many other better explanations to infer like it was taken by one of his disciples or tomb robbers. There were Roman Imperial edicts at the time about bodies being stolen from tombs and the punishment for those doing it. So even using your own method of IBE, you still fall short.

File: Jesus fulfilled 351 OT pr(...).png (718 KB, 598x742)

718 KB PNG

Every time an unsaved historian casts doubt on the Bible, an unsaved archaeologist digs up the evidence that shows the Bible was telling the truth all of the time. The Bible is unlike all other ‘sacred books’ in that it bases its ‘authenticity’ and ‘authority’ on prophecy.

Only in Christianity are there accurately fulfilled prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels). So, we can trust what was originally written. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). All this adds to the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity above all other religions – all based on the person of Jesus.

Either Jesus is true, and all other religions are false, or other religions are true, and Jesus is false.

Jesus’ disciples fled when He was betrayed by Judas Iscariot. They were nowhere to be found when He was crucified. However, fifty days later, they were boldly proclaiming that Christ had risen from the dead. What was the motivation for the apostles to go through so much suffering just for a lie? There was certainly nothing to be gained by doing this. In fact, there was everything to lose for claiming Jesus had risen. Indeed, those who proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection were rejected by their own countrymen as well as persecuted wherever they went.

Virtually all modern historians and biblical scholars agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. The most convincing evidence lies in the sheer volume of early, independent sources—both Christian and non-Christian, the geographical and cultural accuracy of the texts, and the rise of Christianity itself. The prophecies are real.

Salvation is a free gift, and it's conditioned on accepting Jesus Christ.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntcv

>>18630847
What if you found out Earth was flat? Would that lift Satan's veil from your eyes?

>>18630941
>Yeah using actual data not bronze age fairy tales.
The data are the writings we have about him. You don't even have to take the writings at face value. Most historical scholars don't, but they still admit that the historical facts about Jesus that I listed are all well-attested.
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Something is either evidence or not. But it is still very unusual for any ancient figure to be as well-attested as Jesus.
>the first written account is from Paul's letters 20 years after Jesus's death.
Paul converted into a Christian very soon after his Jesus' crucifixion, probably within 1 or 2 years. He wrote a lot of letters but most of them are missing. We can infer that whatever facts he knew about the appearances of Jesus didn't change in between the time of his earliest letters and the letters that remain today.
>This is not reliable evidence that meets scientific or even historiographical standard
By that logic, it's not even possible to study history. The sources for Jesus are very early when compared to sources for other famous people. Also, the gospels are oral traditions which have been handed down from eyewitnesses. So they were being circulated almost immediately after Jesus' crucifixion. They were just written down later.
>bodies being stolen from tombs
The tomb was guarded by soldiers. Also, if it was just stolen, that doesn't explain how so many of his followers saw him soon after and how they came to sincerely believe that he had risen from the dead.

>>18630978
>Most historical scholars don't, but they still admit that the historical facts about Jesus that I listed are all well-attested.
no they don't.
>The data are the writings we have about him
lol
>There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
factually incorrect
>We can infer that whatever facts he knew about the appearances of Jesus didn't change in between the time of his earliest letters and the letters that remain today.
No you can't infer that
>By that logic, it's not even possible to study history
nope,
>The sources for Jesus are very early when compared to sources for other famous people
no one says you can just take any old source at face value. the study of history requires corroboration of evidence. The bible doesn't even corroborate itself since it's accounts often contradict one another The 4 gospels give different accounts of what happened.

>>18631030
>it's
its

File: 1773413784755712.png (946 KB, 1912x3000)

946 KB PNG

>>18630901
>>18630931
>you just hate jews, therefore jewish scripture should NEVER be questioned, because jews who wrote it said its the word of god, and only JEW HATERS would disagree anyway!
There is a space in your mind which should be occupied by a process of critical thinking, and instead it's full of Abrahamic-programming. Any process of interrogating the truth is interpreted as hatred or an attack through your lens, because you're simply not engaging with principles of logic. There is no logical reason to believe in jewish scripture. There is no objective facts to examine about the existence of god, described in jewish scripture. The New Testament of the bible is a highly-edited extension of Jewish Old Testament scripture. It's fascinating that you interpret people who understand these facts "jew hatred". It betrays your emotional investment into a belief system which is undermined by basic scrutiny of facts. It's really tragic. Jews who carried the Old Testament into Rome were disgusted by how Christians act, and how they are programmed to see the scripture, and they all believed in the same Old Testament and were born in the same Jewsh communities. It's a political cult with no spiritual philosophy of its own, just psychological-programming that makes people lash out at a process of interrogating truth.

>>18630882
>There is no other figure in history who had this level of documentation,
Mohamed has plenty hadiths documenting his life. The quran even documents how he split the moon in half with his donkey. There are even aparently indian kings who witnessed this event.
You are fucking retarded, yes there has been a lot of figures like that, especially people cited in contemporary administrative sources. The gospels are about as reliable as the accounts of the raelians. Though at least rael is here to record his own testimony and space aliens creating jesus is more likely than whetever crazy loony shit is written in the bible

>>18630874
>The vast, overwhelming majority of the scholars, even the secular ones, agree on this. Only a handful of them don't
Cite a source about exactly what they agree on
>This is also confirmed by Josephus, the historian.
Show how his account was different from reporting what people claimed happened to jesus, especially when he was born after the death of jesus.
>Joseph of Aramithea was a famous rich man in the Jewish Sanhedrin. His tomb was famous back then
Source?
>anyone could go and check it if they wanted to. If it wasn't empty, they would call out the lie and there would be records of it.
Disingenuous, you have the burden of proof. Even supposing the story of the body disappearing is true, of which there is no evidence else you have to give it, occams razor rules that there are millions of better explanations for a body disappearing.
>Saint Paul reports this in his letters and says he knows many of them are still alive. Anyone could go to them and confirm the fact.
There were ten thousand witnesses to me having sex with your mother. If you doubt it, just ask them, they're very reliable

>>18631106
>There is a space in your mind which should be occupied by a process of critical thinking, and instead it's full of Abrahamic-programming
No, I converted to Christianity because Jesus revealed himself to me. I know He is literally real, for a fact, in the same way you know a family member or friend is real and are certain of them existing and being there. It's nothing to do with anything I have been 'programmed,' taught, or indoctrinated from the outside by another person or society, it's completely experiential. The historical evidence and scriptures and other sources just additionally confirm it.

>It's a political cult with no spiritual philosophy of its own
you don't know much about actual Christianity to say things like this, there is a real depth of spirituality, philosophy and Christian mysticism that are you are simply unaware of because your knowledge is completely surface-level and informed only by the barest of pop culture.
Even describing a religion as vast and varied as Christianity as a singular 'cult' is just an absurd statement and the kind of trite, utterly uninformed dead, tired talking point that some 'new athiest' from the 2000s would overconfidently say whose only conception and knowledge of Christianity is vaguely knowing about milquetoast American evangelicalism as depicted in a tv show or something like that.
To flippantly describe a religion that has such varied things in it as hardcore Lutherans and liberal Anglicans at the same time or scholasticism and the lives and writings of hermits, mystics and monastics as just 'a cult' with all the same kind of thinking and no philosophy of its own is just nonsensical and uninformed. Even if everything you believe about Jews is true it's still a clueless description of Christianity and doesn't reflect reality.

>>18631030
>no they don't.
Yes they do. The scholar N T Wright has argued this.
>lol
Are we not supposed to use writings about him?
>factually incorrect
Why?
>No you can't infer that
Why?
>nope,
The earliest biographies we have of Alexander the Great are written more than 300 years after his life. According to you, is all of that fake too?
>since it's accounts often contradict one another
They don't really contradict each other, especially not regarding the facts I mentioned.

>>18631106
>There is no logical reason to believe in jewish scripture
Their being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Documents by Jews are treated like any other documents.
>There is no objective facts to examine about the existence of god, described in jewish scripture.
We are talking about the historical facts pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth here. Whether he is God or not is a separate discussion.
> The New Testament of the bible is a highly-edited extension of Jewish Old Testament scripture.
What? That's not even remotely true. What are you even basing this on?
The rest of your post is just more ad hominem.

>>18631215
>Cite a source about exactly what they agree on
They agree on all the facts listed here >>18630851. Just look it up.
>Source?
The gospels say as much. There's no reason for them to lie about this.
>occams razor rules that there are millions of better explanations for a body disappearing.
Like what? All reasonable alternatives have been explored and shown to be unreasonable. Read N T Wright's book on the resurrection.
>There were ten thousand witnesses to me having sex with your mother.
You're anonymous to me, so I can't fact check your claim. Paul was not anonymous to the people he was writing to and they could check his claims whenever they wanted.
>Show how his account was different from reporting what people claimed happened to jesus
How is it different? It doesn't go into a lot of detail but it doesn't contradict the gospels.

File: Screenshot_20250921_12473(...).jpg (411 KB, 1080x1619)

411 KB JPG

>>18630851
Literally every single claim you made is wrong. You're just a liar like all christcucks.

>>18631246
How are they wrong? Those are all claims accepted by biblical scholars, even the secular ones. On the other hand, virtually all scholars disagree with Richard Carrier and consider his book to be full of errors.

>>18631228
>The earliest biographies we have of Alexander the Great are written more than 300 years after his life. According to you, is all of that fake too?
some of it is and no historical text should ever be taken at face value on account unless it can be corroborated with other independent contemporary sources or archaeological evidence. No one claims the first biography of Alexander the Great is unfalsifiable either so you're making a false comparison.

>>18630847
There's no proof for evolution. In Darwin's there was a dearth of technology to enable things like DNA sequencing so it was all pulled out of thin air

File: christian atrocities.png (1.85 MB, 798x6520)

1.85 MB PNG

>>18631219
>No, I converted to Christianity because Jesus revealed himself to me
Cult programming. Abject lack of critical thought. Jesus is a English translated name for a dead Jewish rabbi. Nothing was "revealed" to you, schizo.
>you don't know much about actual Christianity to say things like this
I know more than you do, evidently. There's no point in trying to reason with someone that's abandoned all process of interrogating the truth; cannot reason with a psychologically-programmed cultist like you.

I'm bored with Christianity can we talk about other religions on this damn board

>>18631188
Yeah but the Apostles could have denied what they saw and lived, yet they didn't. Apples to oranges my jewish friend.

>>18631236
>the gospels are a source
The gospels contradict themselves, and are not written on a objectively factual basis either. It's not a source of anything except old jewish fiction, an extension of Old Testament jewish scripture. You can point to people who believe in it all day, even ones that wrote books about how inspiring it is, but that doesn't do anything to demonstrate that the scripture is true in any way shape or form. Subjective truth =/= "proof" so you'll have to learn how to do better than that. This is arguing from apologetics, what you're doing.

>>18631106
Jews did not exist back then bub. Pharisees did, but they were not "jews" yet

Rip the sacred flesh
Sodomize the holy asshole
Drink the red blood of the mother of earth
Masturbation on the dead body of christ
The king of Jews is dead
and so are the lies
Vomit on the host of Heaven
Masturbate on the throne of God
Break the seals of angels
Drink the sweet blood of Christ
Taste the flesh of the priest
Sodomize holy nuns
The king of Jews is a liar
The Heavens will burn
Dethrone the son of God
God is dead
Holyness is gone
Purity is gone
Prayers are burned
Covered in black shit
Rape the holy ghost
Unclean birth of Jesus Christ
Heaven will fall
Fuck the church
Fuck Christ
Fuck the Virgin
Fuck the gods of Heaven
Fuck the name of Jesus

>>18631305
>Jews did not exist back then bub. Pharisees did, but they were not "jews" yet
Worthless cope. Jews calling themselves "Christian" are still jews. Born of Jewish families, raised in Jewish communities, given Semitic names at birth that represent the Jewish god Yaweh. Names which they kept from gentiles and used Greco-Roman names instead to sell their Semitic fiction to a uneducated new crowd. Not playing your jewish word games bub.

>>18631312
Modern jews descend from pharisees and a bunch of other mongrels...

>>18631308
Posts like this convince me that demons are among us.

>>18631308
Why are you quoting the babylonian talmud?

>>18631290
>no historical text should ever be taken at face value
Where did I say all of it has to be taken at face value? The facts I listed are corroborated by independent sources.

>>18630851
The biblical Exodus never happened and there was no mass migration of Israelites into Canaan. Actual archeology instead shows that the Israelites were originally a Canaanite tribe who only later became a distinct people. The Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language no different from other Canaanite dialects like Phoenician, Moabite, Edomite, and Ammonite. It was even written in the same script as them as the “Paleo-Hebrew” alphabet is just the Phoenician one, an actual independent Hebrew alphabet didn’t emerge until the 2nd century BC.

Judaism itself evolved out of Canaanite paganism and there are still traces of Canaanite paganism in the Abrahamic faiths such as Psalm 29 which was originally a hymn to Baal, the tradition of calling Yahweh “God” which derives from Yahweh being syncretized with the Canaanite god El whose name also meant “God,” and the divine being referred to in plural which no is not an early reference to the trinity but rather traces of a divine council. There was never any original monotheism and the mass apostasy depicted in 1 and 2 Kings and Judges was in reality the original religion, not some later apostasy. The transition from polytheism to monotheism was a slow, gradual one that took place over the course of several centuries as proper monotheism didn’t exist at all prior to the Babylonian exile and even then, traces of Israelite polytheism survived deep into the Persian period as evidenced by the Elephantine papyri.
(Cont)

>>18630851
>>18631337
The Hebrew Bible is at best a distorted account of history. There probably was a King David, but he was likely a small chieftain rather than ruling over a large empire and he was likely a polytheist given that 1 Chronicles 14:7 preserves the original name of his child Eliada as Beeliada, a name which literally invokes Baal. The version of the Hebrew Bible we have is a heavily redacted version that came as a result of Yahwist priests during the Persian period trying to reconcile their monotheist present with records of a polytheist past. None of the books of the Hebrew Bible were written by the people they’re attributed to and were all written centuries after the events they describe, mainly during the Persian period but some books were even written as late as the Hellenistic period given that there’s evidence to suggest the Book of Daniel was written during the 2nd century BC in the context of the Maccabean Revolt. The Hebrew Bible might accurately preserve the names and dates of kings and the political boundaries of the early Iron Age, but that’s about it really. The rest is mostly a mishmash of oral legends and myths derived from other Near Eastern pagan religions as the story of Adam and Eve has parallels to a Canaanite myth recorded in the Ugaritic texts which extends to even the usage of the name Adam.

As for Exodus itself, at best you can argue that it’s based on a distorted memory of one or more real events from the late Bronze Age. But this is not proof of Exodus but rather proof against it, especially when you consider what the historical roots in question might be (e.g. the Hyksos and the “Shasu of Yahweh”)…

>>18630931
>"BUT ITS JEWISH THOUGH, YOU WOULDNT BELIEVE SOMETHING JEW-RELATED, WOULD YOU???" doesn't work as an argument.
Yes it does. The religion that claims the creator of the universe demands the flaying of newborn penises is prima facie wrong. Anything derived from that cursed, false cult is equally poisoned.

File: 1598391426589.jpg (55 KB, 614x586)

55 KB JPG

>>18630851
>All of the gospels are dated to have been written around 80-90 AD. But according to Christian tradition, the apostles who are said to have written them died before this time.
>Half of Paul's letters are 2nd century forgeries.
>Josephus's mention of Jesus was edited by later Christian scribes (would Josephus, a literal Pharisee btw, really call Jesus the messiah? At best you can argue he wrote a more neutral and brief mention of Jesus which later Christian scribes edited to affirm Jesus as the messiah).
>King Abgar V's letter is universally considered by scholars a forgery. Even the church admitted it was an apocryphal work centuries ago.

>>18630947
Post hand Sanchez

>>18631339
Denounce Shiva

>>18631344
I denounce Shiva, now you denounce the Torah

>>18631337
>>18631338
The facts I listed are in the new testament not the old. You are not engaged with the argument.

File: 1786095593083267.png (860 KB, 1280x764)

860 KB PNG

Christianity is incompatible with true philosophy

>>18631350
The Old Testament is bullshit and thus we can conclude the New Testament is bullshit as well

>>18631340
The apostles are written down versions of oral traditions and eyewitness accounts of what Jesus did in his life. Yes, the testimonium is probably touched up, but the original version still attested that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. That's the only part relevant here.

>>18631352
That's not how it works

>>18631354
*The gospels

>>18631354
>The apostles are written down versions of oral traditions and eyewitness accounts of what Jesus did in his life
They aren't. The gospels were written from 80-90 AD which is long after the lifetimes of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Plus if you read them in the order they were first written, you'll notice each story gets more exaggerated and supernatural over time.
>That's not how it works
If Adam, Abraham, and Moses didn't exist, then the entire basis of the Bible falls apart.

>>18631360
>The gospels were written from 80-90 AD
Yes they were written down then, but they are relating independent oral traditions.

>>18631367
>Yes they were written down then, but they are relating independent oral traditions.
Yes, ones that were exaggerated. Jesus was not born of a virgin, did not do any miracles, and did not rise from the dead.

>>18631377
Those aren't the facts which I listed. There is plenty of evidence from the gospels and letters of Paul that they saw Jesus after he had been crucified and buried.

File: haha.jpg (86 KB, 1004x520)

86 KB JPG

>>18631246
Using Carrier proves you are below a midwit

>>18630868
Make atheists lighten up and have some faith in something for a change

File: 1766609714061.jpg (79 KB, 828x786)

79 KB JPG

>>18630847
Wheres the evidence for evolution?

>>18631308
least unhinged atheist

File: 1775558835358639.jpg (37 KB, 960x952)

37 KB JPG

>>18631424
The Coccyx
Wisdom teeth
The Orbitalis muscle
Goose bumps
Hiccups

>>18630851
So why don't you tell us the proof? All you said is some guys believe in the story.

>>18631430
Therefore fish ancestors.

>>18630851
>All historical Bible scholars agree
They most definitely do not agree!
Some aren't even sure Jesus wasn't an invented by Mark or Paul.

>>18631340
>All of the gospels are dated to have been written around 80-90 AD
Got any proof to back that up?
Besides the late dating comes from the idea Jesus couldn't predict the temple would be destroyed?

>>18631414
They have plenty of faith in their atheism.

>>18631424
Genetic similarity map/tree
Fossil record
Observed evolution in bacteria and viruses in lab environments
Study of speciation occurring when gene pools of a species are separated geographically over prolonged periods of time

And of course all of the lines of evidence above supporting each other. As far as scientific theories go, evolution is probably one of the best supported ones around. You need to be completely ignorant of the science, or deliberately obtuse due to ideology, to dismiss it. Sadly a lot of Americans are both.

>>18631463
What about Darwin's dilemma? Its still just a theory.

>>18631465
Darwin lived 200 years ago. Since then tens of thousands of scientists have worked on evolutionary biology. Stop treating him like some kind of prophet from scripture.

There was a gap in the fossil record during Darwin's time, which has been filled since then. And there are several possible explanations for the sudden increase in speciation like the rise in oxygen and increased predation pressure. Nothing about the cambrian explosion disqualifies evolution.

>>18631478
>Nothing about the cambrian explosion disqualifies evolution.
Except it does? The cope if I remember correctly was that pre-cambrian fossils couldnt be found since they were soft-bodied and wouldnt leave a print. But that has been disproven as softbodied pre-cambrian fossils HAVE been found. So the existence of those animal groups that appeared seemingly out of nowhere is still a huge mystery. Darwin expected transitional fossils to prove his theory. Yet they were never found. Its not an incomplete record at this point. The fossils that prove his theory are simply not there.

>>18631489
Darwin knew a tiny fraction of what we know now about evolution. If you keep going back to his work to disprove evolution you will be 200 years out of date. He was wrong about a lot of things. This would only be a problem if science was like scripture and people weren't allowed to be wrong.

Buy a textbook about evolutionary biology from this century and disprove what is written in there please.

>>18631504
Okay. Point me to the book and the specific text that shows the answer to Darwin's dilemma (you cant). It seems to me you are trying to deflect. You have no rebuttal to what I posted here >>18631489

>>18631513
“The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Biodiversity” by Douglas Erwin

>>18631516
You missed this
>and the specific text that shows the answer to Darwin's dilemma

>>18631517
That's pretty much the topic of the entire book

>>18631522
I accept your concession

>>18631523
Gonna read it?

>>18631525
The whole book? No, lmao. Im busy reading other stuff. You can feel free to pinpoint the specific paragraph that acts as the smoking gun to solving the dilemma. But you wont.

>>18631529
>nooo you can't just point me to a book which entire purpose is to show that the dilemma was answered, you have to point me to a SPECIFIC PASSAGE that says "hereby I solved the dilemma" otherwise it doesn't count
Least disingenuous christcuck

Religious tards would rather have a simple wrong answer to everything, than a complex and incomplete right answer.
It's some kind of brain disorder me thinks.

>>18631337
*An* exodus might have very likely happened but not in the way that bible describes it. Understandable, when remember that it was composed in the exile. It is a fact of history that people immigrated from Asia to Egypt and emigrated. There is evidence for this in the time that Moses would have lived in. In fact, there is indication that aspects of the exodus story in the bible is rooted in history. For one example, the name of Moses itself is highly likely of Egyptian origin. That is true for many of the names of Moses's companions, such as Phineas or Miriam, as well.

>Actual archeology instead shows that the Israelites were originally a Canaanite tribe who only later became a distinct people.
It does not exclude *an* exodus, at all.

>there are still traces of Canaanite paganism
It might have been syncretism, frankly. Only because there are traces of Canaanite polytheism in Judaism does not imply that the origin of Judaism is Canaanite polytheism. For example, there are traces of Egyptian polytheism in the bible, too. Such as Psalm 104 or parts in the book of Proverbs. In fact, syncretism is what many of earlier prophets, such as Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, had been polemizing against.

>There was never any original monotheism
Monotheism had already existed 3000 years ago. It might have been the origin. There is no evidence for either of the scenarios that is conclusive.

>the mass apostasy depicted in 1 and 2 Kings
Would have been? Is it not more likely that Israel had their "chief" God YHWH, who they'd been worshiping? Very similar to Milcom and Chemosh of Ammon and Moab? For which, by the way, there is evidence from archeology. And, then, when the kingdom of Aram and during the reign of the house of Omri Assyria threatened them, that they allied. Intermarried. Exchanged gods? The way it is described in the bible? Enraging the priesthood of YHWH? It is a possibility. Not an unlikely one, either.

>>18631337
>monotheism didn’t exist at all
But it did. In Persia. In Egypt it might have existed. Or, at the very least, a prototype of it.

>but he was likely a small chieftain
Was not easy for Finkelstein to concede it.

>None of the books of the Hebrew Bible were written by the people they’re attributed to
There is no definitiveness on the authorship of some of the books of the prophets and their scribes, at all. In fact, parts of Jeremiah might have very likely been written by Baruch.

File: a24hc5ail8db1.jpg (44 KB, 750x939)

44 KB JPG

>>18631598
There are things I'd sacrifice the truth for. You would not?

>>18631430
none of this suggest we were ever a different species

>>18631565
It should be simple no? How curious that you cant answer a simple question. Pointing me to a book that you just googled doesnt solve a damn thing. Dont you atheist types pride yourselves on supposedly being more rational? Cope.

File: Examples-of-Forelimb-Dive(...).png (53 KB, 681x1047)

53 KB PNG

>>18631683
Just a coincidence bro, don't look into it pls

>>18631705
>all species have a nervous system, eyeballs, a heart, and similar organs, therefor we were all once a fish

>>18631655
>But it did. In Persia
Zoroastrianism is not monotheist and to call it such is laughably wrong. It’s a dualist religion and unlike Abrahamic monotheism where God is the ultimate creator and source of everything, Zoroastrianism believes that there are two uncreated and independent cosmic forces in eternal opposition to each other: Ahura Mazda (Ormazd), the lord of wisdom who is purely good, and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), the destructive spirit who is purely evil. Evil exists not because it’s a privatization of good, but because it is its own opposing force to good. This is not monotheism, Angra Mainyu is not analogous to Satan and Ahura Mazda is not even fully omnipotent.

Beyond these two, Zoroastrianism also has a pantheon of lesser gods called Yazatas (which literally means “worthy of worship/veneration” and many multilingual inscriptions from ancient Iran such as the Res Gestae Divi Saporis translate it to the Greek word for god, θεός). While the Yazatas are ultimately subservient to Ahura Mazda, the religion still demands the worship and veneration of these beings and in pre-Islamic Iran, there were even temples dedicated to them where they received worship and offerings.

>>18631727
>Opinions vary among scholars as to whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic,[4] polytheistic,[5] henotheistic,[6] or a combination of all three.[7]

bump

https://desuarchive.org/his/search/filename/0dc/

Get a job, tranny

>>18630847
They do provide proof, solid proof like "this sounds like its legit because I'm an expert and my Christian pals agree with me" and "this is certainly true because a person who lived 2000 years ago wouldnt have written it like this otherwise and I'm an expert on ancient psychology and a mindreader so you can trust me"