Slashdot Mirror
Astronomers Detect Mysterious Radio Signals Coming From Outside Our Galaxy (sciencealert.com)
This week the New York Post reported on "powerful radio signals which have been detected repeatedly in the same exact location in space," generating as much energy as the sun does in a whole day, in "the only known instance in which these signals have been found twice in the same location in space." Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes Science Alert:
Back in March, scientists detected 10 powerful bursts of radio signals coming from the same location in space. And now researchers have just picked up six more of the signals seemingly emanating from the same region, far beyond our Milky Way... Currently, the leading hypothesis for the source of the Milky Way's FRB is the cataclysmic collision of two neutron stars, which forms a black hole. The idea is that as this collision happens, huge amounts of short-lived radio energy are blasted out into space. But the repeating nature of these distant signals, all coming from the same place, suggest that can't be the case... the most likely hypothesis at the moment for these outer-galactic FRB is that they're coming from an exotic object such as a young neutron star, that's rotating with enough power to regularly emit the extremely bright pulses.
But the New York Post thinks it's aliens.
But the New York Post thinks it's aliens.
The angelic choir, putting on a performance of Julius Caesar on an Aldiss Lamp.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Public imagination is a fickle thing often focused on the here and now. The great thing about FRB is that they are truly mysterious at the moment and a little over excitement is forgivable because science is often thought of as threatening or boring. Politicians are driven by the imperative to put bread on the tables of their voters and science often loses out because of it because it does not make money directly and it poses irritating questions such as climate change. So I say FRB being posed as something fantastic is not necessarily a bad thing. No doubt they are the boring result of some mechanistic behavior of the universe but just the idea of them being something more important knocks on the door of peoples imagination. It sells the story of why we do science at all, it is all about human curiosity which is a defining human quality. We are curious. The big questions in science are already literally fantastic and the answers we already have are beyond imagination. If you put up a big gravestone to the human race I think it might show the most significant progress in the area of scientific understanding. Fair enough we have encoded effective social progress in religious systems for living but the real hard work I think has been in the imagination that can comprehend outside common experience. If you insist that humans require a second party for meaning - a god - then it would seem a trivial existence not to investigate what they have created. FRB's are cool and I want to know what they are.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
"generating as much energy as the sun does in a whole day"
Over what span of time is generating this energy that the sun does 'in a whole day'? Seconds? A day? A year? It's a meaningless statement otherwise, giving no hint of the power of the signal.
I yearn for a time someone with a basic grounding in science was writing these summaries, for which the above would stand out like a sore thumb.
If Jesus Christ is the literal Word of God, why were his last words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Actually, Jesus's last words at the Crucifixion were "it is finished."
And after his resurrection, Jesus's last words in the Bible come in the Book of Revelation, where he says repeatedly, "Behold, I come quickly." And his last words are "Surely I come quickly" (Revelation 22:20).
One might equally wonder why our Lord suffered from sexual dysfunction that led him to highlight it so many times in the last chapter of the Bible.
Calling the emission a "signal" immediately suggests it the artifact of some intelligence rather than an natural phenomena - and that has definately not been established yet.
Following is Googled definition of signal and I can't see any version of meaning which could imply something coming from a natural source:
signal
noun
1. a gesture, action, or sound that is used to convey information or instructions, typically by prearrangement between the parties concerned.
"the firing of the gun was the signal for a chain of beacons to be lit"
synonyms: gesture, sign, wave, gesticulation, cue, indication, warning, motion
"a signal to stop"
2. an electrical impulse or radio wave transmitted or received.
"equipment for receiving TV signals"
verb
1. transmit information or instructions by means of a gesture, action, or sound.
"hold your fire until I signal"
Jesus never existed.
There are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one. As far as the historical record is concerned he just did not exist. There's not a single carving, sculpture, poem, painting, drawing or mention of him from the time in which he supposedly lived.
There is not a single mention in him in military records or dispatches back to Rome (and surely anyone who could command huge gatherings of people in a potentially disruptive province should be of interest). He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests. Surely if he was believed by some to be a prophet and others to be a false prophet some mention of the ruckus he was causing in Judean civic and religious society should have been recorded. Some people like to point to the supposed letters of Pontius Pilate as evidence of Jesus’ life but these were a work of fiction.
Jesus is a composite figure assembled from many, many previous myths that all feature the same story line:
Horus was one of the many Egyptian Gods (3100 B.C.)
He had 12 disciples.
One was born of a virgin in a cave.
Like Jesus, his birth was announced via a star.
And three wise men showed up!
He was baptized when he was 30 by Anup the Baptizer.
He rose a guy from the dead and walked on water.
Lastly, he was crucified, buried like Jesus in a tomb, and resurrected.
Buddha, (563 B.C.)
Healed the sick
Walked on water.
Fed 500 men from one basket of cakes.
Taught a lot of the same things Jesus taught, including equality for all.
He spent three days in jail.
Was resurrected when he died.
Mithra, an ancient Zoroastrian deity with similarities to Jesus (2000 B.C.)
Virginal birth on December 25th.
Swaddled and laid in a manger.
Tended by shepherds in the manger.
He had 12 companions (or disciples).
Performed miracles.
Gave his own life to save the world.
Dead for three days, then resurrected.
Called “the Way, the Truth and the Light.”
Has his own version of a Eucharistic-style “Lord’s supper.”
Krishna, (around 3000 B.C.)
A Hindu God.
Born after his mom was impregnated by a God.
Angels, wise men, and shepherds were at his birth.
Guess what gifts they gave him? Gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
A jealous bad guy ordered the slaughter of all newborns, just as happened with Jesus.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
My guess is it's a precessing pulsar with an offset magnetic field. Pulsars are well known to produce repeating pulses as their magnetic poles rotate in and out of view. To see the pulses requires they cross our field of view, meaning a specific alignment of the rotation axis vs location of the magnetic pole (which don't have to be the same). If there is a second body near the pulsar, with an orbit offset from the equator, it would cause the rotation axis to precess, just like the Earth's does due to the Moon and Sun. Therefore the alignment of the magnetic pole would move in and out of view, and we only see pulses on the rare occasions they line up just right.
This guess would be defeated if the pulses look nothing like normal ones from pulsars, and confirmed if enough data is collected to detect the orbital motion of a second body.
I'm amazed at how off-topic some comments are. It's sad that so many people think their wit and humor are worth sharing with all of us. Of course, there may have been some partying going on before posting on 2016-12-31. The radio emissions are from a yet undefined natural source. That's how everything discovered starts out, without knowing everything.
Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus twice in 93.
1) First off, it was 60 years after his death, so he could not have seen or known Jesus personally.
2) Even worse, the writings by Josephus are now widely recognized as fake, that is, they're forgeries:
http://www.richardcarrier.info...:
In the TF, both grammatically and thematically, the] responsibility for the death of Jesus lies with Josephus’s fellow-countrymen, the Jews, not with the Romans, and in this too the Testimonium is hard to reconcile with Josephus’s denunciation of Pilate’s crimes against the Jews. The Josephus of the Testimonium is represented as aligning himself with the Christians (versus the Jews) and admitting that the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah lies with the Jews; it need hardly be said that such an admission on Josephus’s part is inconceivable.
Wikipedia:
Many Christian apologists cite Josephus to attempt to argue that even the "pagan"/Jewish/etc. Josephus acknowledged Jesus as a savior/miracleworker/etc., and that one should therefore believe in Jesus' divinity. However, citing Josephus as a source on Jesus argument has numerous flaws. For some reason these facts almost always come as a surprise to Christians who cite him. It's almost as if they just look up quotes without any understanding of what constitutes valid sources for determining historical events.
In Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3 of the Antiquities of the Jews (written ca. 93-94 CE), Josephus writes (Whiston’s translation):[2][3]
Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works — a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal man amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.
Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not:
Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph cannot be authentic,[4][5] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[6][7] Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[8][9][10] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[11]
Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lift
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Absolutely correct. Now let's make some changes. The U.S., being a Christian nation, and in the spirit of Jesus will accept all refugees from Muslim nations. The U.S. will also accept the refugees from Central America, the U.S. being partially to blame for the wretched state of affairs in those countries.
Now the poor people get a raw deal. In the spirit of Jesus, the ACA will be affirmed by Congress and strengthened because if you don't have your health, you have nothing.
In the loving spirit of Jesus Christ, homosexuals and any LBGT will be accepted by society. They didn't ask for their genetics, G-d supplied those, so He must approve and Jesus would certainly approve. After all, he ran around with 12 guys for a few years.
Let's celebrate Jesus and Christmas.
Jesus never existed.
Let me start with saying that I have no personal stake in whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. I don't really care about the historicity. However, I DO care about the validity of historical arguments, and you're making a statement here with certainty that is completely unjustified.
Basically, rather than objectively evaluating the evidence, you're stacking the deck unfairly against the other side. The reality is that there isn't really a way to CONFIRM the existence of Jesus after 2000 years, but using criteria applied to other historical figures from that era, Jesus has a stronger than average case for historicity. What that means is that if you're going to apply your same criteria for discounting Jesus to other historical figures, be prepared to throw out around 1/3 of the text of most textbooks with titles like "Ancient History," along with hundreds of other historical figures that we don't commonly doubt the historicity of.
There are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one. As far as the historical record is concerned he just did not exist. There's not a single carving, sculpture, poem, painting, drawing or mention of him from the time in which he supposedly lived.
Please reference the fraction of non-elite persons in a non-central Roman province that have such contemporaneous records at that time. Writers, aristocrats, and government officials have records of their existence. Not children of carpenters. And even for elite folks, the details are often quite sketchy and we often have to interpolate information from historians who wrote of these events a century or two later.
There is not a single mention in him in military records or dispatches back to Rome (and surely anyone who could command huge gatherings of people in a potentially disruptive province should be of interest). He is not mentioned in the records of Herodâ(TM)s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests.
What the heck are you talking about? Do you have any sense of the small number of such records that exist today? There are no detailed accounts of "Herod's court" nor any detailed extant "records of the Temple" or writings of contemporary priests. These sorts of records simply don't exist today for the most part, and the few that do exist are incredibly fragmentary. It's not like we have some sort of "daily log" of events for Roman soldiers and "happenings at the Court and at Temple." (And we do have a number of possible references in the Talmud, though there's a lot that's unclear there.)
Surely if he was believed by some to be a prophet and others to be a false prophet some mention of the ruckus he was causing in Judean civic and religious society should have been recorded.
Unless his "ruckus" wasn't as notable as you think. We DO have evidence that there were a number of claimants of "false messiahs" who went around Judea during that era. We don't really know much about most of them, because why would we about some guy who was followed around by a small group of people who mostly did NOT "cause a ruckus" at first (recall that Jesus's message, at least as recorded, was mostly peaceful).
Anyhow, as for records aside from the Bible, there are several. First, you have Josephus, and your other reply to another post is either ill-informed or disingenuous, because while there ARE likely forgeries in Josephus (notably the Testamonim Flavianum), there are other passages that most historians accept as very likely to be genuine.
Then you have Tacitus, one of the MOST respect
The reality is that there isn't really a way to CONFIRM the existence of Jesus after 2000 years,
Many people would find this a revelation! They regard Jesus as a real historical figure like the prophets Mohammed or John Smith.
They think Jesus is as real a Julius Caesar or Socrates, but it turns out to be a story that may or may not be based on a real person.
The Jesus we know is from stories written well after his death by people who never met him. How many Christians wrongly think the gospels were written by the apostles? The stories were circulated verbally for decades before being written down in something like their current form.
The oldest books in the new testament are by St Paul (who wrote about half of the letters that are traditionally ascribed to him), who also never met Jesus. He is the main source of the Jesus character, and we have no way of knowing how accurate Paul was, how much of his version is invention. But there are certainly many similarities between Paul's Jesus, and previous figures of legend. At the least, Jesus of Nazareth is a composite character.
Jesus has a stronger than average case for historicity.
That's completely false. In a court of law you'd throw out the case for the existence of Jesus simply because literally everyone who claims to have met him and subsequently wrote about it had a stake in whether the story was believed. They wouldn't be considered credible witnesses. Every supposed historical account of the existence of Jesus Christ is either fake, or hearsay, with the possible exception of Tacitus. Tacitus would not have been present for the events in question and provides no source for his information. When someone does that in contemporary writing, we ignore them.
There are various reasons why these passages are deemed authentic, which you can read about in the links.
I read your links. There are reasons why those passages are in doubt, as well, which you can read about in the links.
Again, I don't really care whether Jesus was a "real" historical figure or not.
You spend a lot of time arguing about this for someone who doesn't care.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Here's the full playlist... https://www.youtube.com/playli... for his "Learn the Bible in 24 hours" series since KHouse's YT channel only has his first 12 sessions listed. I'd recommend checking out sessions 1, 13, 14, and 24 to get a taste of his style and approach and then dig into the rest of them if you want to see just how much there is that most people don't know about in the Bible.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
but using criteria applied to other historical figures from that era, Jesus has a stronger than average case for historicity.
Sorry, but this is utter bullshit, and in fact the exact opposite is true. As I said before, there are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one. As far as the historical record is concerned he just did not exist. There's not a single carving, sculpture, poem, painting, drawing or mention of him from the time in which he supposedly lived. Nothing, zero, zip, nada.
There are, however, plenty of accounts both written and physical of other well known figures who existed around the time during which Jesus supposedly lived.
Augustus of Primaporta, Dioscurides, Caesar Augustus, Emperor Ai of Han, etc etc etc....these people and many others were written about, had statues and figurines caved of them, paintings were made of them, and so on. But not a single record ANY ANY KIND exists for a guy who (supposedly) walked on water, fed 5,000 people with "five barley loaves and two small fish", who healed the sick, cured the blind, raised a man from the dead, healed lepers, and who then died and then came back to life.
Apparently none of that was noteworthy enough for anyone to jot down even a single note about. At the same time, however, the scribes and scholars of the time were busy recording the minutiae of everyday life, including the people mentioned above and many others...but not a single word about this amazing person, the "Son of God". Not. One. Fucking. Word.
The most reasonable explanation, the ONLY one that makes any sense at all is that he didn't exist, which is why he left not a single trace whatsoever.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Sorry, but this is utter bullshit, and in fact the exact opposite is true. As I said before, there are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one.
And again, there are literally hundreds of well-known historical figures that we could say the SAME THING about. Are you also going to go on a quest to remove them from history books on the same basis? (Homer, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Democritus, Sun Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, etc., etc. The best you can say about most of these figures is that they MIGHT have existed as a physical person, but we don't have clear evidence. And that's a perfectly fair assessment. Yet you somehow want to claim that you can PROVE Jesus didn't exist.)
There are, however, plenty of accounts both written and physical of other well known figures who existed around the time during which Jesus supposedly lived.
Yep, and plenty of OTHER figures for which we have similar evidence to Jesus, i.e., no contemporary evidence, and only references by 3rd parties from decades or sometimes centuries later.
But not a single record ANY ANY KIND exists for a guy who (supposedly) walked on water, fed 5,000 people with "five barley loaves and two small fish", who healed the sick, cured the blind, raised a man from the dead, healed lepers, and who then died and then came back to life.
And at no point did I EVER argue that such a person existed. As I said, there was a dude named Jesus wandering around Judea in the first century or so, he was apparently killed by Pontius Pilate, and he apparently became the inspiration for folks who would later identify as "Christians." Beyond that, I think a lot of stuff is likely fabricated, as you do. BUT, we seem to have a number of sources for the dude existing.
The most reasonable explanation, the ONLY one that makes any sense at all is that he didn't exist, which is why he left not a single trace whatsoever.
I'm not going to go on with this argument, since there are plenty of better sources out there you could just be reading to realize how ridiculous this all is. But let me just point out what I consider the most serious flaw in all your "most reasonable explanation" -- we have absolutely NO ONE in the centuries after Jesus existed who made the claim that Jesus did NOT exist as an actual human.
If there were even the slightest doubt or rumor that that was true, it would be a boon not only to the enemies of Christianity (Romans, Jews, etc.), but to early Christian sects that are now described as heretics, many of which would have WELCOMED a Jesus that had no physical existence (the Gnostics, perhaps most prominently).
It takes a certain kind of hubris if you know anything about the early Christian heresy debates to look back at all of that and say that if ANYONE suspected Jesus wasn't a real "in the flesh" person that many groups would not have argued that to promote their causes.
So, at a minimum, what we do know is that within a few decades after Jesus's death, EVERYBODY -- from "mainstream" Christians to heretics to Jews who wanted to argue against this new emerging religion to Romans who persecuted them actively -- seemed to think... for whatever reason... that Jesus (called "Christ" by followers) was supposedly based on a real person. We know that to be true, based on historical evidence.
Beyond that, you can choose to believe the historical sources that would be more than sufficient for the existence of plenty of other folks, or you can doubt them and doubt the existence of many historical figures (as many scholars doubt the existence of other major historical figures like Socrates, etc.). I frankly don't give a crap. But don't go around saying you have PROOF that Jesus didn't exist.
There are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one. As far as the historical record is concerned he just did not exist. There's not a single carving, sculpture, poem, painting, drawing or mention of him from the time in which he supposedly lived.
They are called 'The Gospels' and are collected in a book called 'The Bible' namely 'The New Testament' section. Other religions transmitted stories orally before they were formally written down including the Hindus with the Vedas. There are written reports of the time that there were many religious movements in Judea back then so his could have basically been lost among the multitude. Even the Bible itself talks about John the Baptist who is basically another prophet of the same era. There are other possibilies for there being few records; 'damnatio memoriae' is one, another could be the fact that quite simply a lot of things back then were not written at all. Some people actually claimed that Pontius Pilate himself was a fictional character at one point, until the Pilate Stone was discovered in Israel in 1961. Another thing. Judea was the shithole of the Roman Empire back then so it is hardly surprising there are few records. There is Josephus which is the best you're gonna find regarding the circumstances.
As for there being common tropes with prior religions, you said it yourself, these prior religions have common tropes among themselves as well. Oh and remember the twelve tribes of Israel? The slaughter of the newborns in the Ancient Testament regarding Moses? Is the story about Noah in the Ancient Testament a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
Also just because Germany invaded France through Belgium twice in WWI and WWII does that mean WWII never happened? Because it couldn't happen that the French could be suckered into it twice right? Repetition of events isn't proof of it being a lie. Also most of the miracles in the New Testament to me are a lot less fantastic than the things you see in the Ancient Testament especially the stuff around Moses.
To me quite a lot of the 'miracles' in the New Testament could be explained scientifically. Take Lazarus. For all I know he was in a deep coma and never actually died. Same thing could have happened to Jesus after the crucifixion. But that kinda takes the magic away.
It does seem like there was a person the Jesus character was based upon, however the evidence points more towards an offshoot or composite of contemporary cult leaders. There is more acceptable evidence for other, more charismatic cult leaders that era by name if you try to pinpoint a particular person, Jesus the individual not so much.
However the Jesus as described in the bible is total fiction most of it cooked up by Paul but there were other Christian sects at that point which Paul references in his letters as well as many of the so-called apocryphal texts that were later cut and/or destroyed and some of the extant scriptures were conflicting on many of Jesus' "life facts" (including birth, parents, family, adulthood, miracles and death) and not in the official biblical canon. Remember most of the biblical text was written centuries later and adjusted to fit a narrative and even then they couldn't get all the "facts" straight with conflicts of narrative between verses in Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I think the real problem with Jesus vs. any other figure from that time period is simply the mythological factor involving Jesus.
A lot of Greeks wrote terribly untrue shit about their Gods. The Bible has to be thrown out of the evidence pile right off the bat due to the conflict of interest.
Later writers that don't really corroborate each other, and barely corroborate that the guy existed aren't worth a hell of a lot, either, mostly because their writings existed (or were altered) long after a myth could have taken hold.
I don't think one needs a conspiracy theory to doubt the historicity of Jesus, particularly when so many people are so willing to make some really wild shit up to desperate prove he was a historical figure. A lot of people had 2000 years to push a narrative they were willing to kill over forcing people to believe in. It throws an air of suspicion on it all. Me? I don't really care if he existed or not. He wasn't a God, whether he did or not. I don't believe Hercules existed, either- but a ton of Greeks wrote of him do some miraculous shit that they heard about in the not-so-distant past.
They are called 'The Gospels' and are collected in a book called 'The Bible' namely 'The New Testament' section.
Every single word of which was written after Jesus is supposed to have lived. It's almost as if you didn't even read the comment you responded to.
And again, there are literally hundreds of well-known historical figures that we could say the SAME THING about. Are you also going to go on a quest to remove them from history books on the same basis? (Homer, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Democritus, Sun Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, etc., etc. The best you can say about most of these figures is that they MIGHT have existed as a physical person, but we don't have clear evidence.
But for most of the people you mention, we do have pretty clear evidence that they really did exist.
We have multiple contemporary accounts of all of these historical figures (Homer, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Democritus, Sun Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, etc) from their own time and by writers who were not unknown.
In most cases there are sculptures or paintings or drawings or written records of these people created during their life. If you don't see the glaring difference in the quality of the evidence between them and Jesus then I'm not sure what else to say.
To think that Jesus could have done the things he supposedly did and not leave a single trace behind is to suspend one's disbelief to the point of epic gullibility.
I mean, seriously- he died and then came back to life, and no one wrote a single fucking word about it?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
They are called 'The Gospels' and are collected in a book called 'The Bible' namely 'The New Testament' section.
Oh please, give me a fuckin' break. Did you even read my comment? No one knows who wrote the Gospels, but we DO know that they were written long after Jesus' supposed death. In other words (pay attention) they in no way prove anything about him, including whether or not he existed.
-
As for there being common tropes with prior religions, you said it yourself, these prior religions have common tropes among themselves as well. Oh and remember the twelve tribes of Israel? The slaughter of the newborns in the Ancient Testament regarding Moses? Is the story about Noah in the Ancient Testament a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
You're proving my point for me but you're too stupid to realize it. Were all of the common tropes with all their miracles real? Were all of those stories true in terms of their extra-super-magical events?
-
Also just because Germany invaded France through Belgium twice in WWI and WWII does that mean WWII never happened?
I may be wrong, but I think we have hundreds of thousands of multiple independent accounts along with literally tons of supporting evidence to show that those things happened. Photos, memorabilia, military records, physical evidence, etc etc etc. I'd say there's good reason to believe it happened, unlike the "just-believe-my-story-about-the-guy-who-died-and-came-back-to-life" Jesus myth.
-
Repetition of events isn't proof of it being a lie.
And it isn't proof of it being true, either. When you have duplicate fantastical stories all of which claim the same thing, you aren't being unreasonable to think that they were patterned after one another down through the ages.
If the stories had been about a guy going to the store and getting a sandwich, sure, I'd believe it. But the whole virgin birth, three wise men, star in the sky, died and came back to life thing starts to sound like repeated bullshit the second or third time around. Certainly by the 5th or 6th time, unless you're just incredibly gullible.
-
For all I know he was in a deep coma and never actually died.
"For all I know..." I rest my case. So in other words, as far as you know, the story is bullshit.
You're making this waaaaay too easy, but thanks for playing.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The "record" of what a supposed "Jesus" said at his supposed crucifixion was invented 350 years after the supposed event. Quick! Let's write down a transcript from a event in 1665! Today, we call that historical fiction (at best).
Only boring people are ever bored.
Jesus is one of the most historically recorded figures. There are multiple books, accounts, and eye witness recordings about him.
I was just about to say the same thing about Superman and Harry Potter and Batman and Sherlock Holmes and SpongeBob SquarePants and Darth Vader, but you totally convinced me.
Hell, they even have movin' pictures of most of those guys!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...