Yep. Every time a christian tries to play the free will card there’s several examples of that being unequivocally false, the most prominent of which is the plagues. But I believe there was also an instance in the book of Romans.
1 Like
I suggest you do not visit the Jesus Wikipedia page then. I am a strong supporter of WIkipedia but the J.C. page is just embarrassing as it is allowed to remain. I wouldn’t want to get in the way of that crusade.
2 Likes
What’s the worst that could happen? Force me to drag a tree up a hill, then nail me to it? 
1 Like
Yay - first born!!!
1 Like
“I wanna be first born!”
“But I’m older, I get that one. You can be… lice face!”
“I was lice face last time!”
“Fine, be blood face then.”
This looks like a job for the Jewish version of the Flanders, wherever they may be.
3 Likes
maybe we should ask some Yazidis
That’s true for a lot of the stories told in the Torah. Some/Most based on far older myths e.g. the great flood and Noah=Utanapishtim
1 Like
Yet more evidence that Biblical literalist ‘cynics’ are almost as insufferable, and just as stupid-sounding, as Biblical literalist theists.
@LDoBe’s conclusions seem logical enough. Where, in your judgement, are the flaws in their reasoning?
1 Like
Not true. The Roman historian Josephus wrote about Jesus in the first century.
It is true that a lot of received wisdom about Jews in Egypt is just not true and (I’m guessing) was a way of knitting together a lot of older tales into a unified story. A number of archaeologists have written on this subject. The one I’m most familiar with is John Romer.
But I don’t have a dog in this fight. I think the picture is good for a laugh and that’s it.
You do know that the Josephus text was a later insertion and amendment right? It doesn’t stand as historical reference.
1 Like
Richard Carrier agrees.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
