God is a Myth

1, "Have you ever picked up a history book? ANY history from 2000 years ago you would see that there are NO references outside of the bible that indicate that Jesus ever really existed." Actually this false, Multitude of Extra Biblical Proofs for Jesus Christ existence: Flavius Josephus 37AD-97AD, Pliny the Younger, 2, "Assuming you don't know-- the new testament of the bible was written WELL over 100 years after Christ supposedly died (the second time). " Nope, that is the biggest lie in any debate of Theism, Rylands Library Papyrus P52 Manuscript(Which contains John 18:31"33, 37"38, The Gospel of John which has The Most Christology and Clearly says Jesus Christ is God) has an approximate dating of 117 CE and 138 CE, was found in Egypt, it would have taken it 25-30 years to get The Gospel of John from Patmos and Asia Minor to Egypt, so a 87AD-107AD approximate death. When you add to The Fact that The Gospel of John does not mention at all The Destruction of The Temple of Jerusalem in 70AD, which Factually makes it before 70AD. John's Gospel is also extremely different than the Synotics, so we have reason to suppose John copied anyone. With The Gospel of John we have a pre-70AD date here, Jesus Christ Crucifixion was from 30-36AD, so at least The Gospel of John was written during The Apostles time. On Paul, it is indisputable that 1 Corinthians was written in 51-55AD, Every single book of The New Testament was written in or before 70AD, as none mention The Destruction of The Temple in Jerusalem and The Time it takes to spread The Gospel takes years. So what you said has been refuted. 3, "Conversely, it was not written by any one person or group of people." This makes it authentic, had it been written by one guy, we would have reasonable doubt. we have multiple witnesses giving their own experiences of the same evident with embarrassment(Criteria of Embarrassment). in court of Law even 1 witness is valid, The New Testament was written by 7-8 different men who had outspoken disagreements with the same beliefs, thereby authentic in Court of law. "Each section (Ephesians, Timothy, etc) was written by a different author at a different time with NO connections to the other chapters. Hence why there are so many contradictions. These were hand picked and put together for royalty who were making the change from "Paganism" to Christianity. It's been edited, re-edited, translated, re-written, translated, and translated some more. Like a ridiculously long game of telephone, there's simply NO way that the original meanings are still intact, or that anything in the book itself is factual." You must prove your claim, Assertions and Opinions without backup are not valid in debate, Only Logic, Reason, Proof, Evidence, and Facts. 4, "1. Both were conceived of a virgin." From http://thedevineevidence.com... There are two separate birth accounts in regards to Horus (neither depict a virgin birth): Version 1: Hathor, the motherly personification of the milky way, is said to have conceived Horus but we are told her husband, Ra, was an Egyptian sun god. Hathor (a sky goddess) was represented by the cow whose milk brought forth the milky way. By the will of her husband Ra, she gave birth to Horus: "I, Hathor of Thebes, mistress of the goddesses, to grant to him a coming forth into the presence [of the god]... Hathor of Thebes, who was incarnate in the form of a cow and a woman." Source(http://www.sacred-texts.com...) and Source(http://www.pantheon.org...) Version 2: When we examine Isis as Horus' mother, we are told Isis was not a virgin, but the widow of Osiris. Isis practices magic to raise Osiris from the dead so she can bear a son that would avenge his death. Isis then becomes pregnant from the sperm of her deceased husband. Again, no virgin birth occurs: "[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [penis] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [sperm], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus]." Source(http://www.sacred-texts.com...) and Source(http://www.pantheon.org...) "2. Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)" THE FATHER AND SON UNITY Critics suggest the Christian trinity was adapted from the notion of Osiris, Ra, and Horus being one god in essence. Because Horus was born after the death of Osiris, it came to be believed he was the resurrection, or reincarnation, of Osiris: "He avengeth thee in his name of 'Horus, the son who avenged his father." Source(http://www.sacred-texts.com...) Throughout the centuries, the Egyptians eventually considered Osiris and Horus as one and the same. However, this son-as-the-father comparison more closely resembles the metamorphosis of Hathor into Isis than it does the Christian trinity. We see Horus first as the son of Ra, then being the equivalent of Ra, then Ra finally becoming just as aspect of Horus. Similar to Hathor and Isis, we simply see a merger of one being into another. In Egyptian mythology, each god had a distinct beginning by being conceived from other gods. In Christian theology, God and Jesus always existed as one and the same, neither having a beginning or an end. Jesus' birth did not represent His creation- only His advent in human from. Furthermore, the father-son concept was not created by first-century Christians. Prophecies in the Old Testament referred to the future Messiah as the Son of God up to 1,000 years before the birth of Christ. I Chronicles 17:13-14 "9. Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25." Horus' birth was actually celebrated during the month of Khoiak,http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk... (October/November). Though some critics claim Horus was born during the winter solstice, this shows more of a relationship to other pagan religions which considered the solstices sacred. 2, The Bible nevers says Jesus Christ was born on December 25th, that's just a day we celebrate His birthday. "24. Both have 12 disciples." TWELVE DISCIPLES Superficially this similarity seems accurate until we see Horus' "disciples" were not disciples at all- they were the twelve signs of the zodiac which became associated with Horus, a sky god. However Jesus' disciples were actual men who lived and died, whose writings exist to this day, and whose lives are recorded by historians. Because Horus' "disciples" were merely signs of the zodiac, they never taught his philosophy or spread his teachings. The fact that there are twelve signs of the zodiac (twelve months) as compared to Jesus' twelve apostles is an insignificant coincidence. "30. Both were crucified. 31. Both were crucified next to two thieves. 32. Both were buried in a tomb. 33. Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days). 34. Both had their resurrection announced by women." CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION But such a theory results in an catch 22, apparently noticed by the Egyptians as they later altered their beliefs to fix the contradictions. In the Egyptian tale, Osiris is either dismembered by Set in battle or sealed in a chest and drowned in the Nile. Isis then pieces Osiris' body back together and resurrects Osiris to conceive an heir that will avenge Osiris' death (although technically Osiris is never actually resurrected as he is forbidden to return to the world of the living). Source(http://www.sacred-texts.com...) and Source(http://www.pantheon.org...) I reached the character limit, therefore anything I missed I will refute in the next round.(keep this on check. In the next round you must Thoroughly refute all 4 rebuttals.