Just my own theory, don't hate me pls!

yo this is actually not bad... i like this theory. or maybe, just some drunko had a hallucination, or someone got high w/o realizing, OR a heat mirage!

Yeah, Jesus is just Heresay. Science proves it to be bullcrap

Shut up

Not an always sunny fan huh

Never watched it.

Чеs.

Jesus is definitely not fiction. Real historical documents prove it to be true.

Random fact: The Oracle of Delphi used to burn a special plant and inhale the fumes before giving a vision. What would the odds of her "Visions" just being drug-induced hallucinations because she was high?

Ah yes, the ultra-modern hypothesis that ancient people were unsophisticated and stupid, and therefore inferior. Makes me roll my eyes every time.

They were just less advanced. At that time space and stuff wasn’t a thing. They either thought the earth was in the center and the sun and moon went around it, or didn’t think about it at all. So the idea of aliens also didn’t exist to them, so they had to fill in the blanks

"They were just less advanced." Less technologically advanced does not equal intellectually inferior to modern people. It is a remarkably dim view of ancient people to assume they were stupider just because they don't have the shiny toys we have, which really is to assume we are superior because we know how to harness electricity. I don't think we're any smarter or stupider than ancient people; we just have more material stuff, and I have a hunch there are more people in the year 2022 who believe in earnest that the earth is a flat disc than there were 5,000 years ago, and that not one of those people has ever been hungry in their lives.

They were not stupider. Things had just not been discovered. They didn’t know much about outer space at all

yeah, but they did that with people that animals they hadnt seen before, outsiders with a different skin tone, and natural events. Almost everything was a f**king god. You pull a quarter out of your ear, you're a god now

Yeah, this especially applies to Egypt

Every time. Anything happens, it's a god. When Paul did a sign to prove his point, the Romans didn't accept his point, they worshipped him because they thought he and his friend were gods.

What church do you go to?

Uh, what has that got to do with events happening in the Bible? Because my statement is backed up by actual evidence from the Bible.

I consider myself a Baptist in case you weren't attacking me and were just asking a genuine question.

There are so many different versions of the bible because it gets rewritten a LOT. Always has. Trump even rewrote the bible so apparently ANYONE can change it to control their followers. Each religion has their own favorite author so the religion is based on the man, or men, that wrote it. God has never written a book.

I don't think you actually understand the Bible. Yes, there are many versions of the Bible, however, all these versions didn't come just because they wanted to edit them, they are merely translation. Almost ALL of our versions are direct translations of the earliest scripture we can find.

Also, you seem to misunderstand what we mean when we say that god wrote the Bible. We say that God ordained people to write the Bible. So God essentially co-authored the books of the Bible.

Still, what does my church have anything to do with it?

You don't even know the truth about how the bible was written then. Do the research.

What does church have to do with religion???? Seriously, do some research. You've come to a debate unprepared.

I've done the research. Various people wrote the Bible over thousands of years, perhaps you've been researching misinformation.

The church I go to is a Christian church, technically non-denominational. I don't know what my church has anything to do with the apologetics of Christianity in general.

Bruh this guy needs to open a book and close the tabs 😴

Have you ever wrote a sentence in a translator and then translated it multiple times in different languages? It loses it's original translation over time, which is exactly what happened to the bible. That's why your modern day English version is not the bible when it was first written, it isn't even close.

Example of what I'm talking about with the translation problem:

English: A guy rides a bike across a bridge every day for work.
Italian: Un uomo attraversa un ponte in bicicletta ogni giorno per andare al lavoro.
Spanish: Un hombre cruza un puente en bicicleta todos los días de camino al trabajo.
Greek: Ένας άντρας διασχίζει μια γέφυρα με το ποδήλατό του κάθε μέρα πηγαίνοντας στη δουλειά.
French: Un homme traverse un pont à vélo tous les jours pour se rendre au travail.
German: Ein Mann fährt jeden Tag mit dem Fahrrad über eine Brücke, um zur Arbeit zu gelangen.
Back to English: A man rides his bicycle across a bridge every day to get to work.

A very crude example but the point is clear, the last sentence is not exactly the same as the first. This is basically what the bible has gone through, just over a far longer period of time.

You seriously are uninformed of the Bible. Why are you not aware that we translate directly from the three original languages? There is no telephone game going on with the Bible. Close to all versions base their translations from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek it was originally written in. This includes the KJV, though that was translated from scrolls that came later on, and is a bad translation.

It's just one switch, and multiple interpretations to find the meaning:
English: A guy rides a bike across a bridge every day for work.
Greek: Ένας τύπος διασχίζει με το ποδήλατό του μια γέφυρα κάθε μέρα για να πάει στη δουλειά.
English 1 (Google Translate): A guy rides his bike across a bridge every day to go to work.
English 2 (Yandex Translate): A guy rides his bike across a bridge every day to go to work.
English 3 (DeepL Translator): A man rides his bike across a bridge every day to get to work.

As you can see, the translations keep the original meaning quite well. Obviously, the writers of the Bible didn't write in English and then translate to Hebrew, so already the translation is better. On top of that, the translations are even better than that because they are done by actual Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew scholars who understand the meaning rather than digital translators. This is why I find it quite profound that you would think the Bible unreliably translated.

King James is a documented pedophile that hated women and burned them alive in the street. He re-wrote, not translated, his bible to raise up men and keep women, children and all minorites beneath them. That's historical fact that KJ bible thumpers love to ignore.

Trump added politics to the bible he re-wrote.

You can bury your head. That's your right. But don't ever presume to correct me because I've read more history than you. Religious people are famous for rewriting history to make themselves feel better about the atrocities they've committed and blamed on God.

The absolute worst part is the way hypocrites like you shove your version of the bible down everyone else's throats but refuse to follow the commandments yourselves.

I don't even use the KJV, it's a crappy version. One of it's verses say, "thou shall not kill," when the accurate verse should be "thou shall not murder." I don't care who King James was, I care about the accuracy of the version.

What do I care if Trump added politics to the Bible he rewrote? I don't follow his version. He's already been rejected by most conservative Christians anyway. Unrelated versions are exceptions to the rule that I said.

You know more history than me. Right. Well I highly enjoy history so maybe you have, maybe you haven't, but just because you know history more than me doesn't mean you know everything about history and it doesn't mean I can't correct your limited knowledge of it.

You are trying to use unrelated examples of bad translations and rewritings to claim that all versions do this. That's the hasty generalization fallacy, and you, the one who claims that I know nothing, should know that.

You are blinded by your faith. Maybe you don't follow Trump's bible, but you likely follow a version that was edited by another ruler at some point in history. It was never just anyone that did the bible translations, it was often scholars and scribes sponsored by the state. Meaning... the rulers of those states would have the chance to make some edits, being that they were the ones paying. And before you get on your high horse, there is no way to track these little alterations from corrupt leadership through history, so you are very likely using a version that was made to leverage a population of people into a certain political leaning. Just saying.

Blinded by my faith, am I? Well okay, totally reliable and unbiased judge who knows absolutely everything I believe about Christianity and why I believe it. I try to keep it so that I follow the Bible because it's compatible with reality, but if you, oh wise and knowledgeable critic, infallible and perfect in your claims, say that I actually follow reality because it's compatible with the Bible, there is not the slightest sliver of doubt that you are correct.

As I said, the origins of the translation has nothing to do with the accuracy of the translation. I told LadyDeerHeart, and now I'm telling you, I don't care who King James was when it comes to the translation of the Bible, I care about the accuracy of the version.

Anyway, I use a couple of versions, namely the New International Version (NIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV). I occasionally use the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). You tell me if those were scribes and scholars sponsored by the state. Yes, there is a way to track the little alterations because we have access to what is close to the original manuscripts of the Bible's books.

hate hate hate

The bible is not a reliable source of evidence. It is proven to be just a collection of stores from different men over centuries compiled into one book and heavily edited/translated over multiple generations.

If you can't even claim to believe the Bible, you can't claim to believe in LITERALLY anybody who has died because their historical accounts are nothing compared to the Bible

As I have said, the bible is not a historical account, it's a retelling of stories. Maybe they were real events that happened, but we have no proof, other than the words of the bible. Your claim that anybody who has died can't be trusted by word is absolutely ridiculous. You can't trust a book that was written centuries ago by a nameless author that has been translated between different languages and rewritten countless times to serve the narrative of the ruling powers of the world. The modern day bible is nothing like it was when first written, and that's fact. It is crazy of you to claim the bible is more trustworthy than say a source we have video footage or photo evidence of. You are brainwashed, clearly. The bible is effectively a collective of fables religious nuts cling to to justify their religion. You can't prove anything that is in the bible did or did not happen.

It's proven in the same way people like ghengis khan and Alexander the great are proven... except it's proven way, WAY better. Tens of thousands of matching documents

So you are saying it is wholly proven that some guy found a burning bush and it was in fact, a sign from god? Or that there was indeed a giant flood that engulfed the whole of the world and now every human and animal are descendants of just one pair of their species? And what you're saying is that those two points along with everything else in the bible are far more believable than a Mongolian leader who dominated the East, or a Mesopotamian ruler who was just good at his job?

Now I'm not going to deny the things in the bible that have actually been proven, like historical locations, but there is absolutely no "matching documents" to prove the supernatural elements of the bible, like any mention of your god, jesus, or many other characters.

I would love to debate you on that however I currently do not feel like it
Instead I am going for a walk into the darkness for at least 45 minutes

Ummm alright? Have fun I guess?

Don't confuse, "most well-supported book" with "every little story is well-supported." For example, in the well-supported Bible, there is very minimal evidence of the crossing of the Red Sea.

I can confidently tell you there is conclusive evidence Jesus existed, so conclusive, in fact, that most major non-Christians accept that he existed (though reject the rising from the dead and miracles, even though those have good evidence). To claim that Jesus never existed would be like claiming that Hannibal never existed, or Socrates, possibly even Alexander the Great.

We literally have more proof for the Bible's events than any other history book. Perhaps even combined. The Bible is effectively the most accurate book in the world. You can't deny that most things in the Bible (with a few exceptions) happened.

I can, because aside from some locations and historical figures, there is no proof the bible is anything but a bunch of stories. Documented locations don't mean the guy writing the story didn't use his imagination and make something up to entertain. And I am by no means saying the bible holds no truth at all, it is a historical account on some level, but I am denying the religious part of the bible, the parts that say jesus was born to a virgin and his dad is god, or the divine intervention sections where god either damned the people of Earth or saved them from destruction. It's all just a load of horse crap.

The story of Jesus is very well-documented. Enough that to deny his existence is to put a couple of historical figures into question. Maybe not Alexander the Great, but other characters, certainly.

I am not saying jesus was not a real guy, but he most certainly was not born to a woman who never had sex and to a man who is some supernatural being in the sky. Jesus was definitely a really charismatic guy in his day, but he was just that, a guy. He had followers and he gave ancient people something to cling to in their uncertain lives, so they wrote about him. That's it.

There's no way you're able to say with confidence that Jesus was or was not not born of a virgin. You'd have to practically prove or disprove all of Christianity before that happened. Also, Jesus fits the messianic prophecies well, and there is good proof of Jesus's resurrection.

What I said to LadyDeerHeart goes to you, too.

Ok? And you said in that comment that your "statement is backed up by actual evidence from the bible". And My rebuttal is that that the bible is not a reliable source of evidence.

Haha, wow I honestly didn't expect my comments to blow up like this. I actually expected people to comment nasty things about me or something, but not start a debate.

POV: someone has been watching too much history channel

I’m a firm scientific formula nut ok

marvel did that