The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don"t know the actual historical Jesus)

See? That's why I truly hate debating christians. Especially 14 year old dribbling (no its not driveling so please do not get the two mixed up) glasses filled with peanut juice who think that they know all the answers to 0% of nothing. "1. You mentioned the fact that there is '0 proof that jesus existed' yet you carry on mentioning the bible." Did it ever dawn on your teeny bopper brain that your jesus was fictionalized, just like you god and your bible actually got it WRONG? And had you watched the videos, in which you clearly didn't, rather than bumbling your babbling baby brained worthless intellect of tinkertoy blah blah black sheep have you any bull, then you would have realized this. But nah, you opened your maw without thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, using common sense, and using logic of any kind in which YOUR god has none as you cannot even prove even exists. So why shouldn't I dump you right now and end this debate? YOU ANSWER ME THAT! "I don't count this as 0." Right now when you cannot show the world any truth to your jesus ever existing, then you do count as 0. "You haven't taken down the reliability of the bible," Words printed on a page from 2,000 years ago, and because YOU haven't watched the videos shows your bible to be quite unreliable. OK you really want it? Since you deaf, it must mean that you cannot listen to what people have to say, but can only read, thus all TV and movies (unless closed captioned are completely out for you) no exceptions, none, well here you go... Taken from Dossier of Reason and it only covers a minute portion as to why YOUR god would never choose text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible) Which Bible? A. Over 450 English versions of the bible B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, and how those verses read. D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts. II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation. "If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well." Aron Ra Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it." Matt Dillahunty "We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there"s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?" Matt Dillahunty "If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We"d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor." Christopher Hitchens Now do you as a complete idiot and moron that you clearly are want more as to why YOUR god would ---never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible? There's so much more to completely squash you that won't fit into this 10,000 character argument. "so how can you say there is no evidence?" Once again, YOUR bible IS NOT evidence. Its a book. That's all it is. Nothing more. Nothing less. I didn't mention "Mark" at all. See that's another reason why I truly hate christians for the most part, not all, is because they like you, CAN'T READ. What is so fricken difficult about simpleton READING? What did I say? I said "This is taken from The Dossier of Reason" DO---YOU---UNDERSTAND? Sheesh!!!!!!! "You mentioned Mark being a non-eyewitness and written afterwards." I didn't mention it, The Dossier of Reason did. So if you believe its wrong, then you take it up with the person who wrote it, you got it? First off nothing because it happens to be correct if in any possible way you were to have done ANY research whatsoever. And there's verses like that happen ALL THE TIME throughout YOUR bible. "First off, "the manuscripts have been carbon-dated, this disproves this." WHAT MANUSCRIPTS? OK not I am REALLY p**sed off at you, you punk kid who knows ab-so-lu-te-ly NOTHING about his, god, bible, and religion. Since there IS NO ORIGINAL to trace anything back to how can there be "the manuscripts that have been carbon-dated that disproves this"? And since you mentioned absolutely nothing to support your utter B.S and you know its pure crap that you invented, I'm now ending this debate. DO NOT even dream about posting me back again as no matter w=hat you say, it will be completely ignored. I truly do not deal in any way with those who MUST lie and invent excuses in meager attempts to gain attention and get their way especially to those who know better, and I do know better, a lot better.