Discussion Bible’s Historical Reliability

[holy]

So, let me get straight into it.

The Bible's historical reliability is supported by multiple lines of evidence:

1. Manuscript Evidence:

- Over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, far exceeding any other ancient text
- Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrating textual consistency over millennia
- Early manuscript fragments dating to within decades of original compositions
- Multiple independent textual traditions showing remarkable consistency

2. Archaeological Confirmation:

- Discovery of ancient cities like Nineveh, previously thought mythical
- Verification of historical figures like Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, King David
- Archaeological evidence of events like the destruction of Jerusalem
- Confirmation of cultural practices, trade routes, and political structures described

3. Historical Corroboration:

- Non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny) confirming key figures and events
- Multiple independent historical accounts aligning with biblical narratives
- Accurate descriptions of first-century Jewish customs and Roman governance
- Consistency with known historical events and timelines

4. Internal Consistency:

- Coherent narrative across 66 books written over 1,500 years
- Consistent theological development despite diverse authors
- Accurate geographical and cultural details across different time periods
- Preservation of uncomfortable truths that invented stories would likely omit

5. Undesigned Coincidences:

- Multiple accounts with complementary details suggesting eyewitness testimony
- Casual mentions of details later confirmed by archaeology
- Interlocking narratives across different authors without apparent coordination

6. Extrabiblical Sources:

- Ancient near eastern texts confirming biblical customs and historical context
- Greek and Roman historical records aligning with New Testament accounts
- Ancient Jewish sources confirming cultural and religious practices

7. Literary Evidence:

- Sophisticated literary devices consistent with claimed time periods
- Distinct writing styles matching claimed authors
- Genre-appropriate features for historical narrative vs. poetry vs. prophecy

No, I'm not just cherry-picking convenient facts but providing a comprehensive web of evidence that would be impossible to fabricate.
The Bible's historical reliability isn't based on blind faith but on actual solid historical and archaeological grounds.Also, these aren't just religious claims.
They're historical facts supported by secular scholarship and archaeological evidence.
​

---

- holy​

 

[Hernan]

Christ is King.

 

[Nihilus]

Same thing goes for the Talmud , the Quran , the vedas and every other well preserved religious text nowadays
Historical reliability proves nothing, try a better argument next time

 

[holy]

Same thing goes for the Talmud , the Quran , the vedas and every other well preserved religious text nowadays
Historical reliability proves nothing, try a better argument next time

Your response betrays such profound historical and methodological ignorance that I hardly know where to begin. But, don't worry, boyo, let's educate you

First, you're committing a false equivalence so basic it would make a first-year history student fucking cringe.
The historical attestation between these texts isn't remotely comparable:

1. The Quran was compiled centuries after Muhammad, with earlier variants destroyed under Uthman. We have ZERO contemporary historical attestation of its miraculous claims. Zero.
2. The Vedas? They're explicitly mythological texts that make no historical claims to verify. That's like comparing a history book to the Odyssey and saying 'well, they're both old books.'
3. The Talmud is a legal and interpretative text, not a historical document making empirically verifiable claims about public events.

The Bible, in contrast, makes specific, verifiable historical claims about public events, names actual locations and people, and - this is fucking crucial - does so in a timeframe where it could have been easily falsified by contemporary sources.
We have non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources confirming key elements.
We have archaeological evidence aligning with its claims.
We have manuscript evidence from within living memory of the events.

Let's take the resurrection as an example.

The New Testament accounts name specific people, places, and times. They claim over 500 witnesses, many still alive when the accounts were circulated.
They include embarrassing details about the disciples' cowardice and women as first witnesses - details you'd never include in an invented story in that culture.
The early church exploded in Jerusalem itself, where any false claims could have been immediately debunked.

Compare that to the claims of other religious texts.
Muhammad's night journey? No witnesses.
Krishna's miracles? No historical claims to verify.
The Vedic ages? Explicitly mythological timeframes.

The Bible doesn't just make claims but anchors them in verifiable history, names real people, describes real places, and does so in a way that opened itself to contemporary falsification. The fact that it survived that scrutiny, that we keep finding archaeological evidence confirming its accuracy, that we have early manuscript evidence and contemporary historical correlation - that's what makes it unique.

You're basically saying 'Well, Lord of the Rings and a World War II history book are both well-preserved texts.'
The preservation isn't the point.
It's the historical methodology, the evidence, the contemporary attestation, the archaeological verification.

Try understanding basic historical methodology before attempting comparative religious analysis. Seriously. It'll save you from making such embarrassingly superficial arguments in the future.

 

[Nihilus]

The Quran was compiled centuries after Muhammad, with earlier variants destroyed under Uthman. We have ZERO contemporary historical attestation of its miraculous claims. Zero.

Quran was compiled under the third caliph after Muhammad , that's your first mistake
Yes we have zero contemporary historical attestation of it's miraculous claims , familiar? Just like the bible , we have no evidence that Jesus was resurrected on the third day , and inb4 "500 people saw him" that's a claim , a baseless claim in the bible

The Vedas? They're explicitly mythological texts that make no historical claims to verify. That's like comparing a history book to the Odyssey and saying 'well, they're both old books.'

Yes they are mythological... Just like ... You guessed it : the bible . The bible mixes historical events ( most are in the old testament ) with metaphorical and symbolic narratives . Just like any other mythological book .

The Bible doesn't just make claims but anchors them in verifiable history, names real people, describes real places, and does so in a way that opened itself to contemporary falsification. The fact that it survived that scrutiny, that we keep finding archaeological evidence confirming its accuracy, that we have early manuscript evidence and contemporary historical correlation - that's what makes it unique.

Assuming these people were real in the first place , there is no source outside the bible that talks about the resurrection, literally NO roman historian mentioned that Jesus was resurrected or that the tomb was empty, and even it was ... Realistically some follower have stole the rotten body of Jesus

Now I believe that Jesus existed. But his godhood is a funny made up lie as his story correlates with astrological and astronomical events. ( Silly humans )
Jesus is the sun buddy , your religion is Sun worship . There are dozens of Christ's throughout the multiple different religions
I will not be going into details here , do your own research.

 

[holy]

Holy shit. Your historical ignorance is reaching impressive new depths.

Quran was compiled under the third caliph after Muhammad , that's your first mistake
Yes we have zero contemporary historical attestation of it's miraculous claims , familiar? Just like the bible , we have no evidence that Jesus was resurrected on the third day , and inb4 "500 people saw him" that's a claim , a baseless claim in the bible

YOU LITERALLY PROVE MY POINT

The gap between Muhammad and compilation under Uthman was long enough for significant variations to emerge, which is literally why Uthman had to standardize it and destroy variants.
Meanwhile, we have New Testament manuscripts from within living memory of the events.
The comparison isn't even close.

and inb4 "500 people saw him" that's a claim , a baseless claim in the bible

This just shows you don't understand historical methodology
This claim appears in First Corinthians, written around 55 AD when most witnesses were still alive. It's an empirically falsifiable claim made when opponents could have easily discredited it.
That's fundamentally different from private revelations centuries later.

NO roman historian

Actually, we have multiple non-Christian sources confirming aspects of early Christianity, including Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus.
The fact that skeptical Roman historians didn't verify the resurrection isn't surprising - they weren't writing comprehensive histories of Jewish religious movements. But we have them confirming the existence of early Christians willing to die for this belief within decades.

Jesus is the sun

Zeitgeist-level mythology comparisons. This is embarrassingly outdated scholarship. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other 'dying and rising gods' collapse under actual historical scrutiny.
Osiris stayed in the underworld. Mithras wasn't even a dying-and-rising god.
These comparisons rely on surface-level similarities while ignoring fundamental differences in context and meaning.

Realistically some follower have stole the rotten body of Jesus

Alright, let's think this shitty theory through.
You're suggesting the disciples stole a body, then willingly went to horrible deaths maintaining a lie they knew was false?
That's literally MORE far-fetched than the resurrection.
People die for false beliefs all the time, but not for what they KNOW is false.

Yes they are mythological... Just like ... You guessed it : the bible . The bible mixes historical events ( most are in the old testament ) with metaphorical and symbolic narratives . Just like any other mythological book .

You dismissing historical verification is.. particularly ironic. The Bible consistently makes specific, testable historical claims. We keep finding archaeological evidence confirming details skeptics once dismissed - the existence of Pilate, the Temple practices, specific locations and customs.
The trend of archaeological evidence has consistently supported biblical accuracy. Nice try, though. I guess...

do your own research.

I have.
That's how I know you're repeating debunked arguments from outdated sources.
Your 'sun worship' theory is literally 19th-century pseudoscholarship that no serious historian takes seriously anymore

Now I believe that Jesus existed. But his godhood is a funny made up lie as his story correlates with astrological and astronomical events. ( Silly humans )

The historical evidence for Christianity isn't about 'silly humans' making up stories about astronomical events.
It's about specific, verifiable historical claims made in a context where they could have been easily falsified.
YOUR inability to distinguish between mythological literature and historical documentation with contemporary attestation suggests YOU need to do some actual research beyond internet atheist forums.

But please, tell me more about how the early Christians died for astronomical metaphors they somehow forgot were metaphors

 

[James Othy]

So, let me get straight into it.

The Bible's historical reliability is supported by multiple lines of evidence:

1. Manuscript Evidence:

- Over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, far exceeding any other ancient text
- Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrating textual consistency over millennia
- Early manuscript fragments dating to within decades of original compositions
- Multiple independent textual traditions showing remarkable consistency

2. Archaeological Confirmation:

- Discovery of ancient cities like Nineveh, previously thought mythical
- Verification of historical figures like Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, King David
- Archaeological evidence of events like the destruction of Jerusalem
- Confirmation of cultural practices, trade routes, and political structures described

3. Historical Corroboration:

- Non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny) confirming key figures and events
- Multiple independent historical accounts aligning with biblical narratives
- Accurate descriptions of first-century Jewish customs and Roman governance
- Consistency with known historical events and timelines

4. Internal Consistency:

- Coherent narrative across 66 books written over 1,500 years
- Consistent theological development despite diverse authors
- Accurate geographical and cultural details across different time periods
- Preservation of uncomfortable truths that invented stories would likely omit

5. Undesigned Coincidences:

- Multiple accounts with complementary details suggesting eyewitness testimony
- Casual mentions of details later confirmed by archaeology
- Interlocking narratives across different authors without apparent coordination

6. Extrabiblical Sources:

- Ancient near eastern texts confirming biblical customs and historical context
- Greek and Roman historical records aligning with New Testament accounts
- Ancient Jewish sources confirming cultural and religious practices

7. Literary Evidence:

- Sophisticated literary devices consistent with claimed time periods
- Distinct writing styles matching claimed authors
- Genre-appropriate features for historical narrative vs. poetry vs. prophecy

No, I'm not just cherry-picking convenient facts but providing a comprehensive web of evidence that would be impossible to fabricate.
The Bible's historical reliability isn't based on blind faith but on actual solid historical and archaeological grounds.Also, these aren't just religious claims.
They're historical facts supported by secular scholarship and archaeological evidence.
​

---

- holy​

Christ is King.

Same thing goes for the Talmud , the Quran , the vedas and every other well preserved religious text nowadays
Historical reliability proves nothing, try a better argument next time

Talmud and Quran came way after the Bible.

 

[Nihilus]

Actually, we have multiple non-Christian sources confirming aspects of early Christianity, including Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus.
The fact that skeptical Roman historians didn't verify the resurrection isn't surprising - they weren't writing comprehensive histories of Jewish religious movements. But we have them confirming the existence of early Christians willing to die for this belief within decades.

run run run , not a single resurrection proof

Zeitgeist-level mythology comparisons. This is embarrassingly outdated scholarship. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other 'dying and rising gods' collapse under actual historical scrutiny.
Osiris stayed in the underworld. Mithras wasn't even a dying-and-rising god.
These comparisons rely on surface-level similarities while ignoring fundamental differences in context and meaning.

first of all it wasnt osiris ( it was horus )
the superficial similarities arent the problem here , the SOLE existence of the similarities and their correlation with astronomical events is enough , thats it literally . humans will see the sky and then start writing myths
and the sun christ theory was never properly debunked , opponents of this theory argued on the accuracy of some of the christs but the number is overwhelming and this theory is just invincible
it seems you didn't even bother to do a proper research....
let me enlighten you :

What I have found is that the Christ Myth is basically a Jewish version of the Mystery Religions. These tales of a god-hero manifested in various regions, and assumed different names but kept a lot of there attributes because they were based on the same sun, moon, and starry skies. It was not a big deal to plagiarize certain aspects of the tales, due to the shared Astrological origin and familiar concepts. Attis, Adonis, Bacchus, Dionysus, Baal and Jesus, are but a few of these Sun Personification Metaphors. The Sun is “born” daily at sunrise, yearly at the spring equinox, and every 2160 years, when entering into a new age, or position in the Zodiac. The functions of the Sun, and the characters abilities are aligned in the form of myth. Healing the sick, making all things new, raising the dead (vegetation), giving sight to the blind, renewing strength, reflection walking on water-at dawn, etc. By following the natural example of the Sun, it was believed that through faith in these solar attributes one could accomplish similar feats from a human perspective by having faith in the God-man Myth. Through faith, the believer could similarly have comfort from this concept of rejuvenation, and everlasting life after death. The Sun’s power is the equivalent of the holy spirit which brings life, energy, stimulation and growth. The Sun’s redeeming characteristics, which upon arrival, make all things new again: are the same gifts that were supposedly given by the Savior-god Jesus. I am sure that you have noticed the number 12 frequently used in mythology. 12 sons of Jacob, 12 tribes of Israel, 12 knights of the round table, 12 labors of Hercules, (Jury of twelve before the judge Lol), 12 disciples of Jesus, etc. These are all based off the 12 houses of the zodiac. The virgin birth-constellation Virgo( the virgin), fishermen disciples Simeon and Andrew-Pisces(the 2 fish), John the baptist-Aquarius,(the water bearer), The lamb of god reference-Aries(the ram), Lion of Judah reference-Leo(the lion), Judas the betrayer- that gives the Sun a “kiss of death”-Scorpio

But please, tell me more about how the early Christians died for astronomical metaphors they somehow forgot were metaphor

the deaths of the apostles doesnt proof anything , the stories could be made up , you know that history could be easily falsified right ?

 

[Nihilus]

ALL THIS AND WE STILL DIDNT EVEN START ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL WEAKNESSESS OF THE CHRISTIAN (AND ABRAHAMIC) GOD

 

[sigma]

The four gospels were written after the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is generally dated to 30 AD:

• Mark: Written around 66–70 AD, making it about 40 years after Jesus' time
• Matthew and Luke: Written around 85–90 AD, making it about 50 years after Jesus' time
• John: Written around 90–110 AD, making it about 65 years after Jesus' time

there are also 900 different english translations of the bible
jesus spoke Aramaic but the gospels were written in greek
also there are hapax legomena; ~1/4 of the bible
~1400 are unclear words
~400 are truly unclear

the myth of the flood is also inspired by the early iranian religion which predates judaism, the myth itself was likely created by shepherds
"There is a variant of the Great Flood myth in Iranian religion. Here Yama appears as the herdsman and leader of mankind. Yama rules the world for a long time, during which the earth is increased threefold due to overcrowding. Ahura Mazda tells Yama that a great winter is on the horizon. He advises Yama to build a large three-story barn-like structure (vara) in order to hold seeds of plants and pairs of animals. It seems that the vara were actually some sort of paradise or blessed island, even though the story at first developed as myth among pastoralists about the culture hero building a first winter cattle station."

 

[holy]

run run run , not a single resurrection proof

Yep. There it is. Nihilus does not understand how historical evidence works.

The resurrection isn't evaluated in isolation. It's part of a broader historical framework.
We have the empty tomb attested by hostile witnesses - the Jewish authorities had to create a story about the disciples stealing the body, tacitly admitting the tomb was empty.
We have multiple independent accounts with different literary characteristics but a consistent core narrative.
We have the transformation of the disciples from cowards who abandoned Jesus to martyrs willing to die for their claims.
We have the explosion of Christianity in Jerusalem itself, where any false claims about public events could have been immediately debunked.
We have early creedal materials dating to within months of the events, preserved in Paul's letters.
We have enemy conversions like Paul and James that require explanation.
The resurrection best explains all these historical facts as a coherent whole.

Again, nice try, though.

let me enlighten you :

Your astrology theory is particularly amusing because it displays such profound ignorance of both:
1. Ancient Near Eastern religion
2. Historical methodology.

You claim Horus parallels, but actual Egyptian mythology tells a completely different story.
Horus wasn't born of a virgin. Isis was impregnated by the reassembled corpse of Osiris. He wasn't crucified. Crucifixion wasn't even a thing in ancient Egypt.
He didn't have 12 disciples - this is a complete fabrication.
He didn't die for others' sins - the entire concept of substitutionary atonement is absent from Egyptian religion.
These alleged parallels are 19th century fabrications that no serious scholar of Egyptian mythology takes seriously. Fucking hell.

The zodiac connection is even MORE historically illiterate.
The 12 tribes of Israel predate any significant zodiac symbolism in Jewish culture. The disciples' names and personalities are distinctly first century Jewish, with characteristic linguistic and cultural markers of that specific time and place.
The Gospel narratives show ZERO awareness of astrological symbolism. In fact, they're remarkably focused on concrete historical details, political figures, and Jewish religious controversies of the time.
The early church explicitly rejected astrology as pagan divination.
You're retrofitting modern patterns onto ancient texts without any SINGLE understanding of their historical context.

And, you dismissing martyrdom evidence shows similar historical ignorance.
We have contemporary Roman sources confirming early Christian persecution. No, these aren't later legends.
We have Tacitus describing Nero's persecution, Pliny asking Trajan how to handle Christians willing to die rather than recant, and multiple other sources.

Your "history could be easily falsified" claim betrays complete ignorance of ancient historiography.

We have multiple independent attestation of key events.
We have enemy attestation from hostile sources.
We have embarrassing details preserved that inventors would have omitted.
We have contemporary verification possible in the original context.
We have archaeological confirmation of numerous historical details that skeptics once dismissed.

The "sun christ theory" wasn't "properly debunked" for the same reason modern scholars don't waste time debunking flat earth claims - it's SO historically illiterate that it doesn't merit serious academic response.

But let's break it down anyway.

Jesus's teachings are thoroughly Jewish in content and context, dealing with interpretation of Torah, Jewish messianic expectations, and first-century religious controversies. Early Christian writings show ZERO solar mythology - they're focused on Jewish scripture interpretation and the historical claims of resurrection. The resurrection narratives include specific historical details, named individuals, and political contexts that make no sense as solar metaphors. The Gospel genre matches Greco-Roman biography, not mythological literature.

Your mystery religion parallel is equally problematic.
Mystery religions were about cyclical nature myths - Christianity claimed specific historical events.
Mystery religions were about secret knowledge for initiates - Christianity made public, verifiable claims about events.
Mystery religions happily accepted multiple gods - Christianity maintained strict Jewish monotheism.

You're pattern-matching superficial similarities while also ignoring fundamental differences in historical context, literary genre, theological content, cultural framework, and historical claims

This is the problem with internet-level religious "research". It looks for surface-level patterns while ignoring the actual historical and cultural context that gives these elements meaning. The existence of death and rebirth themes in multiple cultures doesn't mean they're all saying the same thing, any more than stories about floods mean all flood narratives are historically connected. Real historical analysis requires understanding specific contexts, genres, and cultural frameworks.


"the deaths of the apostles doesnt proof anything , the stories could be made up , you know that history could be easily falsified right ?"

Shitty argument that shows a profound misunderstanding of ancient historiography.
We're not just dealing with isolated claims.
We have multiple independent sources, including hostile Roman and Jewish sources, confirming early Christian persecution.
Tacitus and Pliny describe early Christians willing to die rather than recant.
Again, these aren't later legends . They're contemporary accounts.


The idea that the disciples made up stories and died for a known lie defies basic human psychology. Why do you keep fucking using this? AGAIN, people die for false beliefs all the time, but not for what they KNOW is false.
These weren't distant followers but were the very people who would have known if they were promoting a lie. And they went to horrible deaths maintaining their testimony about events they claimed to witness firsthand.

 

[Slicer]

I remember watching that video like 10 years ago. There are plenty of yt videos that debunk every single claim in that video

 

[sigma]

I remember watching that video like 10 years ago. There are plenty of yt videos that debunk every single claim in that video

how

 

[holy]

ALL THIS AND WE STILL DIDNT EVEN START ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL WEAKNESSESS OF THE CHRISTIAN (AND ABRAHAMIC) GOD

I would dust both your lack of understanding in theology and atheist worldview in that debate.

 

[Nihilus]

Yep. There it is. Nihilus does not understand how historical evidence works.

The resurrection isn't evaluated in isolation. It's part of a broader historical framework.
We have the empty tomb attested by hostile witnesses - the Jewish authorities had to create a story about the disciples stealing the body, tacitly admitting the tomb was empty.
We have multiple independent accounts with different literary characteristics but a consistent core narrative.
We have the transformation of the disciples from cowards who abandoned Jesus to martyrs willing to die for their claims.
We have the explosion of Christianity in Jerusalem itself, where any false claims about public events could have been immediately debunked.
We have early creedal materials dating to within months of the events, preserved in Paul's letters.
We have enemy conversions like Paul and James that require explanation.
The resurrection best explains all these historical facts as a coherent whole.

Again, nice try, though.



Your astrology theory is particularly amusing because it displays such profound ignorance of both:
1. Ancient Near Eastern religion
2. Historical methodology.

You claim Horus parallels, but actual Egyptian mythology tells a completely different story.
Horus wasn't born of a virgin. Isis was impregnated by the reassembled corpse of Osiris. He wasn't crucified. Crucifixion wasn't even a thing in ancient Egypt.
He didn't have 12 disciples - this is a complete fabrication.
He didn't die for others' sins - the entire concept of substitutionary atonement is absent from Egyptian religion.
These alleged parallels are 19th century fabrications that no serious scholar of Egyptian mythology takes seriously. Fucking hell.

The zodiac connection is even MORE historically illiterate.
The 12 tribes of Israel predate any significant zodiac symbolism in Jewish culture. The disciples' names and personalities are distinctly first century Jewish, with characteristic linguistic and cultural markers of that specific time and place.
The Gospel narratives show ZERO awareness of astrological symbolism. In fact, they're remarkably focused on concrete historical details, political figures, and Jewish religious controversies of the time.
The early church explicitly rejected astrology as pagan divination.
You're retrofitting modern patterns onto ancient texts without any SINGLE understanding of their historical context.

And, you dismissing martyrdom evidence shows similar historical ignorance.
We have contemporary Roman sources confirming early Christian persecution. No, these aren't later legends.
We have Tacitus describing Nero's persecution, Pliny asking Trajan how to handle Christians willing to die rather than recant, and multiple other sources.

Your "history could be easily falsified" claim betrays complete ignorance of ancient historiography.

We have multiple independent attestation of key events.
We have enemy attestation from hostile sources.
We have embarrassing details preserved that inventors would have omitted.
We have contemporary verification possible in the original context.
We have archaeological confirmation of numerous historical details that skeptics once dismissed.

The "sun christ theory" wasn't "properly debunked" for the same reason modern scholars don't waste time debunking flat earth claims - it's SO historically illiterate that it doesn't merit serious academic response.

But let's break it down anyway.

Jesus's teachings are thoroughly Jewish in content and context, dealing with interpretation of Torah, Jewish messianic expectations, and first-century religious controversies. Early Christian writings show ZERO solar mythology - they're focused on Jewish scripture interpretation and the historical claims of resurrection. The resurrection narratives include specific historical details, named individuals, and political contexts that make no sense as solar metaphors. The Gospel genre matches Greco-Roman biography, not mythological literature.

Your mystery religion parallel is equally problematic.
Mystery religions were about cyclical nature myths - Christianity claimed specific historical events.
Mystery religions were about secret knowledge for initiates - Christianity made public, verifiable claims about events.
Mystery religions happily accepted multiple gods - Christianity maintained strict Jewish monotheism.

You're pattern-matching superficial similarities while also ignoring fundamental differences in historical context, literary genre, theological content, cultural framework, and historical claims

This is the problem with internet-level religious "research". It looks for surface-level patterns while ignoring the actual historical and cultural context that gives these elements meaning. The existence of death and rebirth themes in multiple cultures doesn't mean they're all saying the same thing, any more than stories about floods mean all flood narratives are historically connected. Real historical analysis requires understanding specific contexts, genres, and cultural frameworks.



Shitty argument that shows a profound misunderstanding of ancient historiography.
We're not just dealing with isolated claims.
We have multiple independent sources, including hostile Roman and Jewish sources, confirming early Christian persecution.
Tacitus and Pliny describe early Christians willing to die rather than recant.
Again, these aren't later legends . They're contemporary accounts.


The idea that the disciples made up stories and died for a known lie defies basic human psychology. Why do you keep fucking using this? AGAIN, people die for false beliefs all the time, but not for what they KNOW is false.
These weren't distant followers but were the very people who would have known if they were promoting a lie. And they went to horrible deaths maintaining their testimony about events they claimed to witness firsthand.

holy giga cope , you dont seem to get don't you
anyway peaple will believe what they want to believe and you seem quite biased here
you want the ancient religions to have a strictly 1to1 pattern with Christianity not even releasing that religion in itself shifts just like culture and language
good grief

 

[Nihilus]

I would dust both your lack of understanding in theology and atheist worldview in that debate.

one word f*g , the invincible epicurusian paradox and your beloved god blown to dust

 

[holy]

The four gospels were written after the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is generally dated to 30 AD:

• Mark: Written around 66–70 AD, making it about 40 years after Jesus' time
• Matthew and Luke: Written around 85–90 AD, making it about 50 years after Jesus' time
• John: Written around 90–110 AD, making it about 65 years after Jesus' time

there are also 900 different english translations of the bible
jesus spoke Aramaic but the gospels were written in greek
also there are hapax legomena; ~1/4 of the bible
~1400 are unclear words
~400 are truly unclear

This is such a historically illiterate take.

First, those dating ranges you're throwing around are LATEST possible dates from the most skeptical scholars, and even those are getting pushed back by recent scholarship. But let's run with your dates for a second.

40-65 years is NOTHING in ancient historiography. We accept most ancient historical accounts written centuries after events without batting an eye. Tacitus wrote about events 80+ years prior. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great came centuries later. And we still consider those historically reliable.

But here's what makes your argument even more embarrassing:

1. You're completely ignoring the pre-Gospel tradition. Paul's letters, written in the 50s AD, contain early creedal material dating to within MONTHS of the events. 1 Corinthians 15 preserves a creed scholars date to within 2-5 years of the crucifixion. That's contemporary historical material by any standard.
2. The Gospels draw on earlier written and oral sources. Mark didn't just sit down in 70 AD and make shit up. He's compiling and organizing existing tradition. We can see this in the literary layers, the Aramaic substrata, the preservation of embarrassing details - all markers of early, authentic material.
3. The "Jesus spoke Aramaic but Gospels were in Greek" argument is fucking laughable to anyone who understands ancient Mediterranean culture. Palestine was multilingual. We have clear evidence of widespread Greek usage. Many Jews were bilingual. The Gospels preserve Aramaic phrases and show clear signs of Aramaic sources. This actually SUPPORTS their authenticity.
4. Your hapax legomena argument shows you don't understand basic linguistics or textual criticism. Unique words are EXPECTED in any large text corpus. The percentage in the Bible is actually NORMAL for ancient literature. Many hapax are just rare words we understand perfectly well from context or cognate languages.
5. The "900 translations" argument is possibly the dumbest of all. We don't rely on English translations for historical analysis, you absolute walnut. We work from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. And guess what? The textual variation between manuscripts is minimal and doesn't affect any major historical or theological points.

The fact that you think these are serious arguments against biblical reliability just shows you're regurgitating internet atheist talking points without understanding the actual scholarship.

You're not even wrong in an interesting way - you're wrong in ways that first-year biblical studies students learn to avoid.

Want to talk about ACTUAL textual criticism? Let's discuss the manuscript traditions. Let's analyze the various text types. Let's look at the development of the Gospel traditions. But this surface-level "gotcha" bullshit? It's fucking embarrassing.

But please, tell me more about how multiple translations somehow undermine historical reliability. I could use another laugh

 

[holy]

one word f*g , the invincible epicurusian paradox and your beloved god blown to dust

LFMAOOOOOOOOOOOO NO WAY YOU MENTIONED A DEBUNKED "PARADOX"

 

[Nihilus]

LFMAOOOOOOOOOOOO NO WAY YOU MENTIONED A DEBUNKED "PARADOX"

NO FUCKING WAY
THOSE WHO TRIED DEBUNKING THE PARADOX COULD NOT EVEN REMOTLY TOUCH THE CENTRAL POINT !!!! THEY TRIED TO ARGUE THAT "god is beyond understanding" OR THAT "evil doesnt exist" OR THAT "evil is mankind creation (which is probably your point)" . PLEASE HUMOUR ME WITH YOUR "DEBUNKING"

 

[holy]

anyway peaple will believe what they want to believe

and you seem quite biased here

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

Yep. There it is. Nihilus does not understand how historical evidence works.

The resurrection isn't evaluated in isolation. It's part of a broader historical framework.
We have the empty tomb attested by hostile witnesses - the Jewish authorities had to create a story about the disciples stealing the body, tacitly admitting the tomb was empty.
We have multiple independent accounts with different literary characteristics but a consistent core narrative.
We have the transformation of the disciples from cowards who abandoned Jesus to martyrs willing to die for their claims.
We have the explosion of Christianity in Jerusalem itself, where any false claims about public events could have been immediately debunked.
We have early creedal materials dating to within months of the events, preserved in Paul's letters.
We have enemy conversions like Paul and James that require explanation.
The resurrection best explains all these historical facts as a coherent whole.

Again, nice try, though.



Your astrology theory is particularly amusing because it displays such profound ignorance of both:
1. Ancient Near Eastern religion
2. Historical methodology.

You claim Horus parallels, but actual Egyptian mythology tells a completely different story.
Horus wasn't born of a virgin. Isis was impregnated by the reassembled corpse of Osiris. He wasn't crucified. Crucifixion wasn't even a thing in ancient Egypt.
He didn't have 12 disciples - this is a complete fabrication.
He didn't die for others' sins - the entire concept of substitutionary atonement is absent from Egyptian religion.
These alleged parallels are 19th century fabrications that no serious scholar of Egyptian mythology takes seriously. Fucking hell.

The zodiac connection is even MORE historically illiterate.
The 12 tribes of Israel predate any significant zodiac symbolism in Jewish culture. The disciples' names and personalities are distinctly first century Jewish, with characteristic linguistic and cultural markers of that specific time and place.
The Gospel narratives show ZERO awareness of astrological symbolism. In fact, they're remarkably focused on concrete historical details, political figures, and Jewish religious controversies of the time.
The early church explicitly rejected astrology as pagan divination.
You're retrofitting modern patterns onto ancient texts without any SINGLE understanding of their historical context.

And, you dismissing martyrdom evidence shows similar historical ignorance.
We have contemporary Roman sources confirming early Christian persecution. No, these aren't later legends.
We have Tacitus describing Nero's persecution, Pliny asking Trajan how to handle Christians willing to die rather than recant, and multiple other sources.

Your "history could be easily falsified" claim betrays complete ignorance of ancient historiography.

We have multiple independent attestation of key events.
We have enemy attestation from hostile sources.
We have embarrassing details preserved that inventors would have omitted.
We have contemporary verification possible in the original context.
We have archaeological confirmation of numerous historical details that skeptics once dismissed.

The "sun christ theory" wasn't "properly debunked" for the same reason modern scholars don't waste time debunking flat earth claims - it's SO historically illiterate that it doesn't merit serious academic response.

But let's break it down anyway.

Jesus's teachings are thoroughly Jewish in content and context, dealing with interpretation of Torah, Jewish messianic expectations, and first-century religious controversies. Early Christian writings show ZERO solar mythology - they're focused on Jewish scripture interpretation and the historical claims of resurrection. The resurrection narratives include specific historical details, named individuals, and political contexts that make no sense as solar metaphors. The Gospel genre matches Greco-Roman biography, not mythological literature.

Your mystery religion parallel is equally problematic.
Mystery religions were about cyclical nature myths - Christianity claimed specific historical events.
Mystery religions were about secret knowledge for initiates - Christianity made public, verifiable claims about events.
Mystery religions happily accepted multiple gods - Christianity maintained strict Jewish monotheism.

You're pattern-matching superficial similarities while also ignoring fundamental differences in historical context, literary genre, theological content, cultural framework, and historical claims

This is the problem with internet-level religious "research". It looks for surface-level patterns while ignoring the actual historical and cultural context that gives these elements meaning. The existence of death and rebirth themes in multiple cultures doesn't mean they're all saying the same thing, any more than stories about floods mean all flood narratives are historically connected. Real historical analysis requires understanding specific contexts, genres, and cultural frameworks.


"the deaths of the apostles doesnt proof anything , the stories could be made up , you know that history could be easily falsified right ?"

Shitty argument that shows a profound misunderstanding of ancient historiography.
We're not just dealing with isolated claims.
We have multiple independent sources, including hostile Roman and Jewish sources, confirming early Christian persecution.
Tacitus and Pliny describe early Christians willing to die rather than recant.
Again, these aren't later legends . They're contemporary accounts.


The idea that the disciples made up stories and died for a known lie defies basic human psychology. Why do you keep fucking using this? AGAIN, people die for false beliefs all the time, but not for what they KNOW is false.
These weren't distant followers but were the very people who would have known if they were promoting a lie. And they went to horrible deaths maintaining their testimony about events they claimed to witness firsthand.

Very thoughtful Time-consuming response.

holy giga cope , you dont seem to get don't you

New-Atheist response.

 

[Nihilus]

Very thoughtful Time-consuming response.

Atheist response.

i am not an atheist and i am quite tired from writing , he is spitting bullshit that doesnt proof anything , he doesnt get the point which i stated here :

you want the ancient religions to have a strictly 1to1 pattern with Christianity not even releasing that religion in itself shifts just like culture and language

but whatever , he displays good writing style and knows how to play with words , he tends to avoid the central point and he argues like a keyboard warrior using ad hominem and such . but whatever

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

one word f*g , the invincible epicurusian paradox and your beloved god blown to dust

Whats the paradox

 

[holy]

NO FUCKING WAY

yes way.

THOSE WHO TRIED DEBUNKING THE PARADOX COULD NOT EVEN REMOTLY TOUCH THE CENTRAL POINT !!!!

they could.

THEY TRIED TO ARGUE THAT "god is beyond understanding" OR THAT "evil doesnt exist" OR THAT "evil is mankind creation (which is probably your point)"

real quick, before I make my own point: how are any of these refutations.. terrible? enlighten me.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

but whatever , he displays good writing style and knows how to play with words , he tends to avoid the central point and he argues like a keyboard warrior using ad hominem and such . but whatever

I doubt you read shit but the insults tbh

 

[holy]

ad hominem

After saying:

one word f*g

fucking hilarious.

that doesnt proof anything

we know that's not true, Nihilus.

 

[Nihilus]

I doubt you read shit but the insults tbh

no my love

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

i am not an atheist

You do not believe that a god exists = Atheist

 

[holy]

I doubt you read shit but the insults tbh

He barely did.

 

[Nihilus]

real quick, before I make my own point: how are any of these refutations.. terrible? enlighten me.

they are weak , they avoid the central point ... a very weak type of argumentation

 

[holy]

they are weak , they avoid the central point ... a very weak type of argumentation

Refute them, Nihilis. Show us WHY they're weak and WHY they avoid the central point.

 

[Nihilus]

You do not believe that a god exists = Atheist

god is nature , and man observed nature and made god in their own image

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

god is nature , and man observed nature and made god in their own image

So you believe that a god exists?

 

[Nihilus]

Refute them, Nihilis. Show us WHY they're weak and WHY they avoid the central point.

by nature and design they avoid the central point (which is the paradox) , arguing that evil doesn't exist ( when it clearly does ) is weak

 

[Nihilus]

So you believe that a god exists?

god as in creator ? yeah sure

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

god as in creator ? yeah sure

So your agnostic

 

[Slicer]

god is nature , and man observed nature and made god in their own image

"These things you have done and I kept silent; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes." - Psalm 50:21

 

[Whitepill]

dnr all the yap above
GODtis is the only man in the sky

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

dnr all the yap above
GODtis is the only man in the sky

View attachment 304.YOU_ARE_A_SLAVE_-_The_Illuminati_are_Your_Parents.mp4

 

[Nihilus]

So your agnostic

not really , i study esotericism ...
my views are a mix of o9a satanism , eastern mysticism and buddism

 

[Nihilus]

Refute them, Nihilis. Show us WHY they're weak and WHY they avoid the central point.

"The anti-God that I take seriously is the malicious omnipotent omniscient being, who, it is said, creates so that creatures will suffer, because of the joy this suffering gives It. This may be contrasted with a different idea of anti-God, that of an evil being that seeks to destroy things of value out of hatred or envy. An omnipotent, omniscient being would not be envious. Moreover, destructive hatred cannot motivate creation. For these two reasons I find that rather implausible. My case holds, however, against that sort of anti-God as well as the malicious one. The variety of anti-Gods alerts us to the problem of positing any character to God, whether benign, indifferent, or malicious. There are many such character traits we could hypothesize. Why not a God who creates as a jest? Or a God who loves drama? Or a God who, adapting Haldane's quip, is fond of beetles? Or, more seriously, a God who just loves creating regardless of the joy or suffering of creatures?"

 

[holy]

buddism

 

[Nihilus]

View attachment 53768

like it or not mr holy , buddha's teaching are infinitely better than jesus's teachings

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

not really , i study esotericism ...
my views are a mix of o9a satanism , eastern mysticism and buddism

Order of Nine Angles?
@holy Your arguing with a cringe 15yr Neo-Nazi.

 

[holy]

like it or not mr holy , buddha's teaching are infinitely better than jesus's teachings

 

[Slicer]

 

[holy]

Order of Nine Angles?
@holy Your arguing with a cringe 15yr eboy Neo-Nazi.

You're right. Let me stop.

 

[Nihilus]

Order of Nine Angles?
@holy Your arguing with a cringe 15yr eboy Neo-Nazi.

please scream more that you know nothing about the O9A , i am not even "aryan"

 

[Nihilus]

View attachment 53773

WOAH , SUCH A POWERFUL ARGUMENT !!!! I TAKE BACK MY WORDS MR @holy

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

please scream more that you know nothing about the O9A , i am not even "aryan"

"Traditional Satanic Neo-Nazi Group"
Please tell me more about this cult and whats to be gained from studying it