#w.b. eerdmans | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

morganh1066-blog · 8 years ago

Text

why the historicity of the jesus character is poor

did the jesus character really exist?

keep in mind that i'm not saying that this character 100% didn't exist. i'm saying that it's extremely unlikely due to the lack of credible evidence. it is fallacious to say that because something is possible that it is therefore probable. i'll answer this in multiple posts, and they will be a bit long, but give it some patience, and i'll describe it in as much depth as i can.

historically the question on the historicity isn't anything new, there have been a number of people who have doubted the credibility of the proposed data. the scholarly research into the idea that the jesus character wasn't real goes back to the 1700s with Volney and Dupuis. There's also Bauer, Remsberg, W.B. Smith, Arthur Drews, Couchoud, Bolland, Allegro, GA Wells, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Thomas Brodie, and Doherty

the main point is that *there is absolutely no direct evidence or primary sources for the character. * it never wrote anything, no one who met the character wrote anything about it, thus all of the proposed evidence is secondary at best and hearsay.

the people i have communicated with have brought up a number of people's writing as "proof." in particular:

Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Clement of Rome, 2 Clement4, Ignatius, Josephus (Jewish historian), Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Tacitus (Roman historian), Lucian (Greek satirist), Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistula Apostolorum, Celsus (Roman philosopher), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise, Suetonius, Thallus, gospels: Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the reference to tiberius

first off, the gospels themselves are not valid forms of biography.

_"Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books ascribed to them."_ -- Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June 1994)

_"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."_ -- Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

_"Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing."_ -- Jeffery L. Sheler, “Who Wrote the Bible,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars– from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus."_ -- Jeffery L. Sheler, “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"The bottom line is we really don’t know for sure who wrote the Gospels."_ -- Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that 'we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus.' "_ -- Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926

_"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They’re not biographies."_ -- Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

_"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."_ -- Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

the other very important fact is that there is no contemporaneous historical account of the jesus character. there are first century historians that never mention the jesus character at all:

*seneca*: 4bce-65ce *pliny the elder*: 23-79 *quintilian*: 39-96 *epictetus*: 55-135 *martial*: 38-103 *juvenal*: 55-127 *plutarch*: 46-119 *philo-judaeus*: 15bce-50ce

some of the dead sea scrolls were contemporaneous and they don't mention the character either.

next i’ll discuss the books of the new testament.

================================

here is the list of the books in the new testament:

_*writer book*_ *matt* matt *mark* mark *luke* luke acts *john* john I john II john III john revelation *peter* I peter II peter *james* james *jude* jude *paul* romans philipians I timothy II timothy I corinthians II corinthians colossians titus I thessalonians II thessalonians philemon galatians ephesians *undetermined* hebrews

note that paul appears to have written pretty much half of these books and according to *galatians 1:11-12* he clearly states that he didn't get this information from a man, but rather from revelation.

*matt*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s_. (ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew [oup2003], p235) no original manuscripts are in existence. could not have been an eyewitness as written far after the supposed death (einar thomassen, " 'forgery' in the new testament," in the invention of sacred tradition, ed. james r lewis and olav hammer [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007], p141)

*mark*: not able to confirm author. _written 70-75._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference

*luke, acts*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference

*john, I john, II john, III john, revelation*: not able to confirm author. however it is the only gospel that gives a clue that the actual author could have been john (john 21:20-24). _written in the 90s._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

*I peter, II peter*: not able to confirm author. _written about 80-90_ [Stanton, Graham. Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.] considered to be "wisdom literature." Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author. (Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Fortress Press. 1996) authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. (Travis B. Williams (1 November 2012). Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. BRILL. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-90-04-24189-3. Retrieved 1 April 2013.)

*james*: not able to confirm author, considered to be pseudonymous. considered to be written in the last 1st and first 2nd century ("Epistle of James". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved 16 May 2012.) _The earliest extant manuscripts of James usually date to the mid-to-late third century._ (McCartney, Dan G (2009). Robert W Yarbrough and Robert H Stein, ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: James. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.)

*jude*: _written at the end of the 1st century_. Although some scholars consider the letter a pseudonymous work written between the end of the 1st century and the first quarter of the 2nd century, arguing from the references to the apostles (jude 17&18), and tradition (jude 3). and the book's competent Greek style, conservative scholars date it between 66 to 90 (Norman Perrin, (1974) The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 260 and Bauckham,RJ (1986), Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.50, Word (UK) Ltd. p.16-17)

*attributed to paul*: romans, philipians, I timothy, II timothy, I corinthians, II corinthians, colossians, titus, I thessalonians, II thessalonians, philemon, galatians, ephesians. thessalonians is usually dated to 49 ce, but later ones are mid 60s. paul, by his own witness was not an eye-witness of the jesus character as stated in galatians 1:11-12. no originals are in existence. the earliest are some from 200 (Ehrman, Bart (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper SanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. page 60)

*hebrews*: author unknown. _written around 80_. no original manuscript is in existence.

bruze metzger wrote: *"none of the original documents is extant, and the existing copies differ from one another."* (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 1992) the earliest manuscripts date back to 125 to 400, and none of those are originals.

incidentally, bart ehrman considers that 11 or more books out of the 27 books of the new testament were written as forgeries and that the "New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate." the article continues to say that ehrman believes that _"Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds."_ (*"Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says".* CNN. 2011. retrieved 1 25 14)

ehrman continues to say that these are the forged books: Acts of the Apostles, First Epistle of Peter, Second Epistle of Peter, Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Epistle of Paul to Titus, Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, and the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians.

thus from this information, with no original documents in existence, none of the manuscripts is a primary source for the sole purpose of evaluating the historicity of the jesus character.

next, i'll show the "proofs" outside of the bible

==========================

now regarding the "proofs" outside of the bible that people have frequently presented to me:

1 Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution) 2 Clement of Rome 3 2 Clement4 4 Ignatius 5 Josephus (Jewish historian) 6 Polycarp 7 Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 Didache 9 Barnabas 10 Shepherd of Hermas 11 Fragments of Papias 12 Tacitus (Roman historian) 13 Lucian (Greek satirist) 14 Justin Martyr 15 Aristides 16 Athenagoras 17 Theophilus of Antioch 18 Quadratus 19 Aristo of Pella 20 Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories) 21 Melito of Sardis 22 Diognetus 23 Gospel of Peter 24 Apocalypse of Peter 25 Epistula Apostolorum 26 Celsus (Roman philosopher) 27 Pliny the Younger (Roman politician) 28 Gospel of Thomas 29 Gospel of Truth 30 Apocryphon of John 31 Treatise. 32 Suetonius 33 Thallus

gospels: 34 Matt 35 Mark 36 Luke 37 John 38 Paul

39 reference to tiberius

what's also important is to not fall into the fallacy of mistaking *quantity over quality.* this is akin to two wrongs making a right. it needs to be *quality over quantity.*

so let's start with #39, tiberius:

that someone says another person lived during the time of the supposed character but that the person never wrote about the character is not proof. you have to have the writing about the character for there to actually be contemporaneous evidence. until then it's just claimed contemporaneous _*existence.*_ NOT evidence.

and let's go to 34-38. the gospels. and paul.

These are a few of the quotes regarding the gospels as non-historical accounts like i had mentioned before:

_"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."_ -- Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

_"the gospels are very peculiar types of literature. they're not biographies. I mean, there are all sorts of details about jesus that they're simply not interested in giving us. they are a kind of religious advertisement. what they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the christian message through the device of using jesus of nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists's position"_ -- religious scholar and historian (paula fredriksen, pbs, "paula fredriksen: religious advertisements," accessed 2/4/12)

gospel "proof":

#34: *matt*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s_. (ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew [oup2003], p235) no original manuscripts are in existence. could not have been an eyewitness as written far after the supposed death (einar thomassen, " 'forgery' in the new testament," in the invention of sacred tradition, ed. james r lewis and olav hammer [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007], p141)

#35: *mark*: not able to confirm author. _written 70-75._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference

#36: *luke, acts*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference

#37: *john, I john, II john, III john, revelation*: not able to confirm author. however it is the only gospel that gives a clue that the actual author could have been john (john 21:20-24). _written in the 90s._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

#38: *attributed to paul*: romans, philipians, I timothy, II timothy, I corinthians, II corinthians, colossians, titus, I thessalonians, II thessalonians, philemon, galatians, ephesians. thessalonians is usually dated to 49 ce, but later ones are mid 60s. paul, by his own witness was not an eye-witness of the jesus character as stated in galatians 1:11-12. no originals are in existence. the earliest are some from 200 (Ehrman, Bart (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper SanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. page 60)

the gospels make no mention that the name of the gospel was written by that person. these are written far after the death of the jesus character, and thus is hearsay. none of these people ever met the jesus character.

hearsay is not credible evidence.

and now on to #1-#33 non-biblical "proofs:"

*#1:* Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution). the reference to the "crucifixion" was written 73 AD does not show direct evidence but just proves that people talked about it. he could have been talking about santa claus, but that doesn't mean it would be true.

*#2:* Clement of Rome. his papacy was between 92-99. he never met the character.

*#3:* 2 Clement4. this character is in the new testament. modern scholars believe 2 clement is written around 95-140 by an anonymous author.

*#4:* Ignatius. never met the jesus character. (from 98 to 117)

*#5:* Josephus (Jewish historian). born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this only confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay

*#6:* Polycarp. was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna. never met the character.

*#7:* Martyrdom of Polycarp. from 155-160. this is well outside the life of the supposed jesus character. it just proves that christians existed.

*#8:* Didache. late first and early 2nd century.

*#9:* Barnabas. never anywhere does it say that barnabas met the jesus character. and amusingly, there's another book called, the "gospel of barnabas" which is a post-medieval manuscript that says that the jesus character wasn't even the son of god and that it never died on the cross. dating on it is disputed, but it's post-medieval

*#10:* Shepherd of Hermas. first or second century. in the document it never states that the character ever met the jesus character.

*#11:* Fragments of Papias. who died in AD 155. never met the jesus character.

*#12:* Tacitus (Roman historian) 56-133. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this only again confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay. rafael lataster writes, _"it is interesting that the name 'jesus', 'jesus son of joseph' or 'jesus of nazareth' is never used, and that this is tacitus' only supposed reference to jesus."_ he continues, _"though 'Annals' covers the period of rome's history from around 14ce to 66ce no other mention is made of 'jesus christ'."_ ehrman references this as well in "did jesus exist, p54. lataster, p61.

Tacitus writes in annals, book 15, chapter 44, *written 116 ad:* _“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”_

*most importantly tacitus was born 20 years after the supposed death of the character and lived 2000 miles away and wrote the passage in 116. So as for the two sentences attributed to tacitus' to be a source to without a doubt to clinch it for the jesus character to actually exist, it's not going to be with tacitus.*

notice also that it was *written 116 ad.* this is almost 100 years after the supposed death of the jesus character. We have no primary sources for Tacitus only *copies or copies* that were *written centuries later.* To suggest that these are word for word copies of the original are absurd considering the considerable christian forgeries during that time.

This passage is also not any different or a more credible source for the jesus character than for me writing in 2014 on Mormonism, "the great golden plates were delivered unto joseph smith as told by moroni" just because i went to school 23.5 miles away from palmyra new york doesn't make it any more plausible.

johannes weiss, the german theologian wrote, _*“Assuredly there were the general lines of even a purely fictitious Christian tradition already laid down about the year 100; Tacitus may therefore draw upon this tradition” *_

german theologian david strauss wrote that the earliest christian communities reworded the gospels to suit local prejudices. hegel noted that christian doctrine kept changing to suit power hierarchy. forgery in the early church was rampant and nothing new.

the contradictions are rampant with regard to the completely missing mention of christianity in book 5 chapters 8 through 10 of the annals that describe judea at the supposed time of the jesus character. *they make no mention of the crucifiction of the jesus character as described in the dubious book 15 chapter 44 two sentences.*

What's more is in the annals of chapters 8-10 makes not even a mention of christians, christianity or the jesus character at all. and all of these references are from writings that are not primary sources as the originals are no longer extant and all we have are copies of copies.

In the tacitus' histories book 5.2-5 he rationalies the greek-roman myths by believing that zeus and kronos were kings. So we're not particularly dealing with someone who could separate fact from fiction.

and with these glaring contradictions, we can thoroughly question the credibility of the claim that the *mere two sentences* attributed to tacitus in any way corroborates anything about the life of a jesus figure's historicity.

We still have no contemporary sources for the existence of the jesus character, nothing written by the character, and especially nothing written about the tons of people that flocked to the character whether or not the character was miraculous or not.

*we want evidence; distinct, obvious, uncompromised evidence.* That is a reasonable request. we want evidence not based on hearsay accounts or ambiguous and slightly dubious sources. Evidence that is not just being argued to fit a narrative that is devoid of any contemporary evidence. then I will change my opinion. but until then, it doesn't matter at all how many times you bang the drum of an appeal to authority or populace or through abusive ad hom call those that require unabiguous evidence "delusional."

*#13:* Lucian (Greek satirist). *lucian (Greek satirist)* -- 125-180. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this once again only confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay.

*#14:* Justin Martyr. 100 – 165 Ad. he never met the jesus character.

*#15:* Aristides. do you mean "aristides the athenian" who was born in the 2nd century ad or do you mean aelius aristides (117-181)? neither of these people met the jesus character.

*#16:* Athenagoras. born 133 ad in greece. never met the character.

*#17:* Theophilus of Antioch. died around 183-185. never met the jesus character.

*#18:* Quadratus. again, born way late in the first century, and died 129. never met the jesus character. *#19:* Aristo of Pella. from 100-160, who is only known because of a mention by eusebius.

*#20:* Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories). who lived in the 2nd century AD. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character.

*#21:* Melito of Sardis. mid 2nd century.

*#22:* Diognetus. late 2nd century.

*#23:* Gospel of Peter. this is actually in the bible, so it's not, "outside the new testament." *I peter, II peter*: not able to confirm author. _written about 80-90_ [Stanton, Graham. Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.] considered to be "wisdom literature." Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author. (Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Fortress Press. 1996) authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. (Travis B. Williams (1 November 2012). Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. BRILL. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-90-04-24189-3. Retrieved 1 April 2013.)

*#24:* Apocalypse of Peter. this is from the 2nd century. way after the death of the supposed character. this does not corroborate anything.

*#25:* Epistula Apostolorum. also from the 2nd century.

*#26:* Celsus (Roman philosopher). 2nd-century Greek philosopher. born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay

*#27:* Pliny the Younger (Roman politician). 61-112 born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay.

*#28:* Gospel of Thomas. Heretical Writings Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on resurrection. this is very nice, but most scholars state that thomas was written in the second century.

*#29:* Gospel of Truth. Was written in greek probably between 140 and 180 by valentinian gnostics. (Attridge, Harold W. and MacRae, George W. "The Gospel of Truth (Introduction and Translation)". The Nag Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson (ed.), pp. 38-51.) the text puts "error" in personified form. and says that the jesus character was sent down by god to remove ignorance. error grew angry that the jesus character confounded scribes and teachers and nailed the jesus character to a tree. bit of a different story there.

*#30:* Apocryphon of John. written in 185. it was referred to by irenaeus in "adversus haereses" and stated that teachers in the 2nd century were producing an "an indescribable number of secret and illegitimate writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish people, who are ignorant of the true scriptures" (adversus haereses 1.20.1 and Pagels 2003:96)

*#31:* Treatise. not exactly sure what this is referring to. the book of acts refers to the gospel of luke as "the former treatise." if this is the case, it is not non-biblical. luke and acts do not have a confirmed author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

*#32:* Suetonius. aside from seutonius not being a contemporary of the jesus character, only wrote, "since the jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of chrestus, he expelled them from rome." (seutonius and jc rolfe, the lives of the caesars, vol 2[london: heinemann, 1914, life of claudius 25.4]) chrestus is a greek name, meaning "the good," so does not necessarily have to refer to the jesus character. note that christians are also not specified, though many early christians were undoubtedly jews. this passage offers little to no information about the jesus of nazareth character.

*#33:* Thallus. lived in the third century. born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. it's just a reference that 9th century christian chronologer george syncellus wrote, "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the Sun in the third book of his Histories." this is ultimately not non-christian reference as syncellus wrote it.

nothing in the dead sea scrolls, btw, which actually was contemporaneous!

and lastly the talmud which some christians reference: there are a number of reference to various character called "jesus" (specifically from the "gemara") which may or may not reference the jesus character of nazareth. the gemara is actually from the 5th or 6th century which is 400-500 years after the death of the supposed character. there are other jesuses refered to in josephus as well, such as , "jesus ben pandira," jesus bar phabet,” and “jesus bar gamaliel." the name “jesus” was a very common name. nothing to directly connect to the jesus of nazareth character.

there is no additive truths here, that the more fractional truths add up to an actual truth. you can have a bunch of people pretending that santa claus was real and the more people saying it's true doesn't make it any more true due the the fallacy of appealing to populace. don't mistake quantity over quality and make two wrongs make a right.

and that something must have been amazing to cause people to write so much after the fact is not evidence either. it just made it an ad hoc popular idea. and evidence from silence is still silence not evidence.

there's also a quote from historian robert wilken:

_"when christianity gained control of the roman empire it suppressed the writings of its critics and even cast them into flames."_ (robert louis wilken, the christians as the romans saw them, [new haven, ct: yale university press, 2003] p xvi)

so there's some censorship for ya of critics of christianity. what they complained about we'll never know either.

next i will discuss the problem of the jesus character not fullfilling the prophecies. these are not at all related to proofs for the historical existence of the jesus character but internal criticism (relating just within the bible itself).

=============================

this is the last post of why the evidence (or lack of evidence) suggest that the jesus character very likely didn't exist. these are not at all related to proofs for the historical existence of the jesus character but internal criticism (relating just within the bible itself).

as for if the character even fulfilled the prophecies that's another problem and let's go over that, too:

and according to the jews, the jesus character doesn't fulfill the prophecies. specifically, the bible says he will: Build the Third Temple -- *Ezekiel 37:26-28* Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel -- *Isaiah 43:5-6* Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." -- *Isaiah 2:4* Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" -- *Zechariah 14:9*

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah. none of these has been fulfilled.

and that this deity which cannot support any burden of proof of itself either sends this message of a mortal son to illiterate bronze age idiots instead of people who could actually make written testimony of it like china for example.

Sin is an imaginary disease that was invented to sell you an imaginary cure. it's the essence of marketing. and the outlandish cures are snake oil cures.

even the old testament doesn't allow for the scapegoat: Deut 24:16 states "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Exodus 32:30-34 shows that the deity refuses to make a scapegoat of moses: The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

ezekiel 18:1-4 shows that the deity refuses to make scapegoats, each shall take responsibility for their actions: "guilty he word of the Lord came to me: “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die."

and then of course there's the point that the jesus character was a total commie, " sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven." *luke 18:22, mark 10:21, matt 19:21. *

horrible family values of the jesus character: _"... i have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law and one's foes will be members of one's own household"_ -- matt 10:35-36; luke 12:52-53

more horrible family values of the jesus character: _"whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"_ -- matt 10:37

and even more bad family values of leaving one's own family: _"another said, 'i will follow you lord; but let me first say farewell to those at home.' jesus said to him 'no one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of god"_ -- luke 9:61-62

we all are a better example of this so-called savior who wants people to abandon their family.

and great forgotten teachings that no one follows: _".. anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"_ -- matt 5:32; 19:9; mark 10:11-12; luke 16:18

this immoral character is not only not likely to be real, but is an horrible example of any kind of idol one should ever follow.

and after all of that, 1 cor 15:14, _"... if christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."_

1 note · View note