re: Christians: “The only thing more powerful than hate is love“

quote:

---

Let me ask something directly: what would actually count as evidence for you? Not rhetorically, but concretely. Historical reliability of the resurrection accounts? Philosophical coherence? Some kind of experiential component? Or is the issue that supernatural claims are ruled out from the start?

---

Someone being resurrected from the dead is impossible, so to believe it actually happened, for me, I would have to have extraordinary evidence. I’m not sure I can even fathom what that might entail. But the evidence provided is not what I would call evidence. All I have are literary creations that are confirmed copies of copies of redacted and modified copies of earlier literary creations that are certainly mythical (the gospels) - none of which include authors that claim to be eyewitnesses. Plus we have Paul’s writings which most plausibly appears to be writings of a mythical Jesus who was crucified and resurrected in the heavens. So neither the gospels nor Paul’s letters in my mind are credible of an earthly Jesus who ever lived on earth much less was resurrected. And the epistle to the Hebrews also depicts Jesus’ sacrifice being carried out in the heavenly temple not made of human hands. And Revelation, Jude, 1 Peter, and James all depict a heavenly Jesus with no mention at all of anything he ever did on earth. Then we have the “Ascension of Isaiah” which is an apocryphal text found in Egypt that was written earlier than the gospels that depicts Paul’s gospel of the heavenly Jesus killed in heaven by the archons. And we have Philo’s Logos who inhabited Joshua (Iesous in Greek, Jesus in English) who was the firstborn son of God… through him all things were made… essentially had all the attributes of Jesus minus the sacrifice. So I know some sects of Jews were worshipping a Logos/Jesus/son of God character a hundred years before Pontius Pilate. So it’s not just a lack of evidence, but a positive evidence that Jesus was fabricated that has me unconvinced Jesus ever existed as a man.

Then of course we have 1 John and 2 John and 2 Peter that seem to be arguing against other Christians who did not believe Jesus ever came to earth in the flesh and did not believe anyone ever saw, walked with, talked with, or ate with Jesus on earth. Despite the orthodox view today, there were “mythicist” Christians who never believed in the earthly Jesus. I have to decide… is it likely Jesus existed and some changed their ideas to him never having existed, or did Jesus start as a mythical being that some invented stories about him on earth. I think the latter. And there is precedent in that exact thing happened 100 miles away from Jerusalem in Egypt with the cult of Osiris… they invented gospels and invented a historical Osiris that Plutarch wrote about. It’s very interesting- Plutarch says the cult was about a heavenly Osiris deity and that the cult made up a story of an earthly Osiris- they set him up as a historical Pharoah, but that it was a tool to convert new initiates - that the initiates believed the historical story while the mature in the cult knew the truth that Osiris was a heavenly deity never being on earth.

I can’t rule out supernatural claims, but I need to see convincing evidence of such a claim, and there not only has been no evidence of such claims, but there is positive evidence proving supernatural claims to be false. Like the creation of the world and mankind - proven false by science through geography, paleontology, genetics, phylogeny, geology, radiometric decay, evolution, and so on.

quote:

---

if something didn’t meet certain standards of evidence and non-contradiction, I rejected it.

---

When in John I read Jesus said no one had ever been to heaven except him, but in 2 Kings I read Elijah went to heaven in a fiery chariot, that right there is a contradiction and makes the whole thing suspect. When one gospel says Jesus told his disciples to take nothing but a staff, and another gospel says not to take a staff, that’s a problem. When one book says to sacrifice your firstborn on the 8th day - to rip him from his mother and “give to the Lord”, while another chapter in that same book says not to do that, we have a problem. When I read “God” as a bloodthirsty monster willing to kill innocent children and babies, that’s a problem. When I learn about ancient religions and figure out how the Jews fit into the west Semitic Canaanite religions as influenced by Egypt and Persia and later Greek philosophy, that’s a problem for believing it to be divinely inspired.

quote:

---

So I understand narrowing what you’ll allow as knowledge. I’m not assuming bad faith or secret rebellion.

---

Good. Many on this site can’t even compute what I write or even understand my vantage point. I can understand theirs - I’ve had their vantage point - I believed in God for a time. Many can’t even understand my arguments and it doesn’t help that they have no scientific training or education whatsoever. Someone did a disservice to them by not teaching them the basics of science.

quote:

---

It seems to me the real fork in the road isn’t “why would someone choose hell?” but whether Christianity’s core claims — especially the resurrection — clear whatever evidentiary bar we think is reasonable.

---

Would you agree that belief is not a choice. I couldn’t will myself to just believe - genuinely believe, I lived on Mars. I’m not convinced I live on mars. The evidence around me contradicts I am on mars. I do not believe I am on mars, whether I wish I was a Martian or not. I don’t think believing in God or Jesus is reasonable, but maybe you do. I get it.

quote:

---

So I’m genuinely curious: what would move the needle for you, if anything? That seems like the more productive place to focus

---

I’m not sure. Maybe for the Bible to contain scientific facts the people wouldn’t have known about thousands of years ago but is today proven to be true. So like if the Bible said we are on a spherical planet circling the sun and that the sun was massive compared to the earth and that the moon was smaller than earth and rotated around it… that would’ve been a good start. But instead the Bible says we live on a flat disc of an earth with a firm dome on top and that above the dome is an ocean of water and that the sun and moon are the same size and are IN the firmament.

Maybe some supernatural revelation experience? If God showed himself, which he could easily do since he’s omnipresent and omnipotent and loves me, then I would believe. But God is invisible and silent.

Is there anything that could move your needle in my direction? If you say no, then that would mean you are closed minded. What would it take?

I don’t think God is very happy with the murder of his most innocent and vulnerable creation. Until Democrats or liberals stop supporting the murder of unborn babies they have nothing to talk to me about. People love to talk about love, but God is also a just God. They like to leave that part out. There will be consequences for hurting the weakest of his creation.

Remember that Jesus "lovingly" flipped over the tables of the Pharisees.

The problem is people’s definition or perception of love. Real love, like that love you have for your children comes with correction (Because you care so much about their future), many people today conflate love with appeasement. Just because something in the moment makes you happy doesn’t mean it’s good, if you love someone you will always want what’s good for them, not necessarily what makes them happy in the moment.

If the Devil made that statement to mock you. Wouldn't you believe that he was trying to trick you?

quote:

---

What is "Christian" about Kid Rock? Have you ever even heard his music? Have you listened to him speak, about anything? The most conservative thing he ever did was to boycott Bud Light for three weeks before drinking it again. The most "Christian" thing he ever did was write a song called 'Only God Knows Why' to complain about his immense fame that he still didn't feel was immense enough. Man, this country is LOST.

---

He sang til you can’t as Ritchie

The other night

Very powerful - love it. He’s super talented- I was really impressed

He’s on a journey with Christ just like Jelly Roll

They seem to be called and ready but still drop f bombs or flip the bird “at haters” on TV - which seems disingenuous to their profess faith in Jesus

Although for myself, I can certainly curse - im not proud of it, but I am able to control my tongue around a camera

quote:

---

I understand why some question Jesus’ divinity, it’s a faith issue, and views differ. But the historical evidence strongly supports Jesus as a real first-century Jewish man from Judea who taught boldly, attracted followers, and was arrested, tried, and crucified under Pontius Pilate (during Tiberius’s reign, around AD 30–33) because of his disruptive claims.

---

I disagree with the part I bolded. Sure it’s possible that could have happened, a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who got himself killed - sure that makes sense. But the evidence is strong against it. The 7 authentic letters of Paul, Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews, Revelation, James, 1 Peter, and Jude all reference a heavenly cosmic Christ who was killed in heaven and none of those texts makes any mention or has any knowledge of the gospel Jesus walking around Judea and Galilee. On top of that, we know 100% that there were actual real Christians who rejected the gospels in favor of this heavenly version of Jesus who was never on earth. We see it in 1 John and 2 John where the author calls those other Christians who rejected Jesus came to earth in the flesh as “antichrists”. We see it in 2 Peter where the author says it was for real true that Jesus really was on earth. Who’s that guy writing to??? Other Christians who denied the earthly gospel version of Jesus.

Why did “he was crucified under Pontius Pilate” get incorporated into the Nicene Creed? Simple. Because many Christians denied such a thing ever happened and they were trying to standardize and “correct” the various Christian sects into a single belief system.

quote:

---

Flavius Josephus

---

Preserved by Christians, not by the Jews who viewed him as a traitor. The Testimonium Flavianum and the other one are Christian interpolations - that is the scholarly consensus.

quote:

---

Tacitus

---

Not contemporary to the original Jesus movement, and he wrote after the gospel traditions of the earthly tradition started to circulate. It’s reliable in the sense that it “proves” there were Christians who believed in the gospel story at the time he wrote, but it doesn’t prove Jesus the man actually existed.

quote:

---

The books were written relatively quickly: Paul’s letters in the 50s AD, the Gospels were within the lifespan of potential eyewitnesses

---

Yet one of the gospel authors even makes the claim to be an eyewitness. The scholarly consensus is that they were written from about 70-150CE. They are 100% literarily dependent on each other, with undeniable evidence of direct copying.

quote:

---

Additionally, many early believers, including eyewitnesses and those who knew Jesus personally, faced severe persecution yet refused to deny his resurrection and identity. Historical records show no recantations; figures like James (Jesus’ brother) were executed for their faith, and others like Peter and Paul met similar fates according to early sources. Their willingness to die rather than recant suggests genuine conviction, not fabrication.

---

This early sources are apocryphal gospels that have been rejected by Christians except for the pieces that describe how the disciples died. There is no evidence- other than literary works that have been rejected by Christians- that show those disciples died for a lie or that they even existed.

Some folks like to say that Paul and Josephus both said Jesus had a brother - James. Must be a historical person, right? But they fail to recognize that all baptized Christians were called “Brothers of the Lord” and also even “sons of (the most high) God”.

You’ve clearly put time into this, and I don’t want to reduce your argument to a caricature. But I think we need to isolate the key hinge point.

You’re arguing that the earliest layer of Christianity was purely celestial — that Jesus was originally a heavenly being killed in a cosmic realm, and that an earthly biography was later historicized into the gospels.

If that’s correct, the case for a historical Jesus collapses. So that’s the right place to focus.

But here’s where I struggle with the mythicist model:

In the undisputed Pauline letters (which you also accept as early), Paul references:

Jesus being “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4)

Being “descended from David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3)

Being crucified (a Roman execution method applied to earthly bodies)

James as “the brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1:19)

If Paul believed in a purely celestial crucifixion in heaven by archons, why reference earthly lineage and kinship at all? Why mention meeting James in Jerusalem? Why ground anything in Davidic descent?

Mythicist readings usually reinterpret all of that symbolically — but that requires assuming symbolic language everywhere the text sounds historical.

From a historical-method standpoint, that seems less parsimonious than assuming there was an actual first-century Jewish figure whose followers interpreted him theologically.

I’m not asking you to concede resurrection or divinity — just this:

Is there any mainstream critical historian (atheist or otherwise) who affirms the “purely celestial original Jesus” thesis? Because overturning that consensus requires very strong evidence.

If the earliest Christianity was entirely mythic, that would be revolutionary — but the burden of proof would be correspondingly high.

Would you agree that the mythicist position carries the heavier explanatory burden compared to a minimal historical-Jesus hypothesis?

quote:

---

You’re arguing that the earliest layer of Christianity was purely celestial — that Jesus was originally a heavenly being killed in a cosmic realm, and that an earthly biography was later historicized into the gospels.

---

Precisely. I think that is the most likely explanation.

quote:

---

In the undisputed Pauline letters (which you also accept as early), Paul references: Jesus being “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4)

---

More accurately “made of woman”. Paul uses “born” in Galatians 4 to talk about the birth of Ishmael and Isaac, so he knew and used that word which means to have been begotten and come forth from a vagina, but he never used that word “born” to describe the origin of Jesus. He always used the related Greek word for “to come into being” or “made”, just like in 2 Cor 5:

quote:

---

21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

---

That “become” is the same Greek word as in Galatians when he says “made” of woman.

quote:

---

Being “descended from David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3)

---

It literally says made of the sperm of David. Descended from David is a defensible translation, but Paul elsewhere is clear Jesus’s body was made. In the ascension of Isaiah, God makes a body for Jesus to “wear” before he had earned his name, and only after his death and resurrection did he earn his name “Jesus” which Paul writes about in Philippians. Paul calls Jesus the “last Adam”… Adam was also made, not born.

quote:

---

Being crucified (a Roman execution method applied to earthly bodies)

---

In the ascension of Isaiah, Jesus was crucified on a tree in heaven. The Jews believed there was a better copy of everything on earth in heaven. Heaven had temples, homes, trees, etc.

quote:

---

James as “the brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1:19)

---

Jesus had a brother! Of course this James was Jesus’ biological brother. Not so fast! All baptized in the name of Jesus were brothers of the Lord and also sons of (the most high) God. It’s all over Paul’s letters, but if you flip your Romans 8 you can see both.

quote:

---

14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

---

Truth is that Paul addresses all his congregations and believers in Christ as brothers.

quote:

---

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers

---

Did Paul have literal biological brothers in Corinth, Rome, Thessalonika, Galatia, and Philippi? Of course not. Brothers was a metaphorical term for fellow cultists. All the Mediterranean mystery savior cults used that language for fellow believers.

quote:

---

If Paul believed in a purely celestial crucifixion in heaven by archons, why reference earthly lineage and kinship at all?

---

I don’t believe he did reference earthly Jesus at all.

quote:

---

Why mention meeting James in Jerusalem?

---

James was the original leader (not Peter). Paul needed the endorsement of James, and in turn Paul funded James. (By the way, Paul was also known in some circles as Simon Magus the wicked magician)

quote:

---

Why ground anything in Davidic descent?

---

To fulfill failed prophecy of the davidic kings ruling forever.

quote:

---

Is there any mainstream critical historian (atheist or otherwise) who affirms the “purely celestial original Jesus” thesis?

---

Richard Carrier
Robert Price
Kip David
All PhDs, all very convincing if you read them.

quote:

---

Because overturning that consensus requires very strong evidence.

---

In the last 500 years, we overturned flat earth, geocentrism, creationism, and more recently the existence of Abraham and Moses. It’s a matter of time.

quote:

---

Would you agree that the mythicist position carries the heavier explanatory burden compared to a minimal historical-Jesus hypothesis?

---

It does, but it’s because people just don’t know what they don’t know.

Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, Adonis, Romulus, and Osiris were all mythical characters that people wrote stories about set in history. Plutarch the Greek philosopher even wrote of the gospels of Osiris that were used to convert initiates but that the mature cultists knew Osiris wasn’t historical but celestial and died and was resurrected in heaven.

Have you read any of Philo? The dude practically was worshipping the celestial Jesus (the Logos) before Paul even. If you read what Philo believed of the Logos, you’d swear you were reading about Paul’s own beliefs about Jesus.

quote:

---

When Nikki Minaj and Kid Rock are "Team TPUSA", I feel obligated to play the proverbial role of "tenth man" and scrutinize until a viable explanation presents itself.

---

This right here.