Jesus vs Atheists

On Facebook, elsewhere on the interwebs, as well as among my godless friends, I've noticed that the prevailing thoughts on Jesus' existence are bitterly disseminated, mostly from highly dubious sources like Zeitgeist, the Movie.

Why are atheists so vociferous about Jesus' existence? What difference does it make if there really was an apocalyptic prophet named Yeshua who preached in Judea? Why do they insist on saying he is a complete myth?

Why do they resort to the typical tactics of Christians, cherry-picking information and passing on rumors without researching?

I myself was guilty of this. It's so easy to see something online or hear someone I like say something that fits in with my worldview and just take is as gospel without thinking critically.

The consensus of leading biblical scholars today say the evidence points to a historical figure. We have as much or more information to verify Jesus' existence than we do for some of the great philosophers from Greece. I think Socrates never left any written evidence either but no one gets bent out of shape when we assume he existed, based on other inferences in teasing out his history.

But my point here is, why does it matter at all? I wrote about this last year: The Jesus Horus Link Revisted For Christmas. Who cares if Jesus existed or not? It certainly doesn't change history. The western world is still saturated with Christianity either way, even the increasingly secular countries.

Personally, I've become comfortable with the consensus that there was a man whom the myths are based on. Just because we accept his existence doesn't mean the whole New Testament is factual or that we have to give up our heathen card and become True Believers. It doesn't mean that he walked on water, was born of a virgin, or ascended into heaven, etc. So where's the threat?

I can also look at the Paul Bunyan story. If you told me there really was a man by that name, I wouldn't get upset about it. It still doesn't mean he had a giant blue ox.

I'm no biblical scholar by any means. I will leave that to the knowledgeable people who find it much more interesting than I do, just like I leave the details of what happens at CERN to the scientists there, and all the other brilliant people who can grasp what is going with particle physics, and interpret the data. I understand I don't know even a fraction of the information and nuances of either field, among many others, and that's just fine.

I can bake awesome cookies though, so I'm not completely useless! :)

Nicholas Bruzzesse and I have a Skype talk planned for the near future where we will talk about such things. He hosts the wonderful The Skeptic's Testament, which is all about "thinking skeptically about religion". In fact, he just did an episode which is about what is known of Jesus' birth story, Episode 2:11. I have only had a chance to listen to half of it but it's very interesting, as usual.

We can never know exactly what happened 2,000 years ago. That's not how history works. So let's not quibble over silliness, when what matters is how Christianity impacts our world today. If a man who preached the End Times existed all those millennia ago walked the earth is irrelevant. What matters is that people actually believed the legends and created a religion out of it - and then spawned another religion several hundred years later.

If you combine all forms of Christianity and Islam, the effect is staggering, now and throughout history since their creations. About 55% of the world is either Christian or Muslim, which is about 3.8 billion people. That is what matters. And what we do about it now is the most important of all.

So what about you? What do you think? And why does it matter if he did exist?

History of: Paper and Cardboard

Hi everyone. Ok, I have no idea of this will go over like a wet blanket or not, but let me explain what I want to do. For the past year or so I have had occasional random wonderings about different things. Yesterday, I was suddenly curious about when cardboard was invented. I know, it's weird, but I thought I'd share my research with you. If you ever wonder about the history of something, please feel free to comment or email me and I'll be happy to research it.

This isn't an in depth study. It's just mainly to expand our horizons, think about something we probably all take for granted, and maybe learn something interesting.

So, when did cardboard get invented? Here's a quick history of paper products:

3000 BCE: Invention of papyrus by the Egyptians, the first writing material created by pasting together thin layers of the pith of papyrus plant, a type of sedge grass that was once abundant in the Nile Delta of Egypt.

1600BCE - 256 CE: In China documents were usually written on bone or bamboo (tablets or strips sewn into scrolls). Silk was also sometimes used, but very expensive.

6th century BCE: By this time, parchment was being used in Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. It was perfected in Pergamon, which is where it got its name. Parchment is made from the skin of calves, sheep or goats, often split. It's thin and is not tanned like leather, but limed. Vellum was a fine quality parchment.

200 BCE: the Chinese glued rice papers to their walls.

105 CE: Cai Lun is considered the inventor of paper in China during the Han dynasty. He created it out of mulberry and bast fibers along with fishnets, old rags and hemp waste. However, the earliest piece of paper that has been found is inscribed with a map and dates from 179-41 BCE. So Cai Lun didn't really invent it, but improved the recipe and the skills for making it.

Paper was very thin and transluscent and was only used on one side. The first use of paper not for writing was to wrap or pad delicate bronze mirrors. It was also used to pad poisonous medicine.

Toilet paper was used in China by the 6th century CE. Around 618-907 CE, paper was sewn into square bags to preserve the flavor of tea. It was also used to make baskets and napkins at that time. The first paper printed money was also in China around 960-1279 CE.

It spread to Japan and then the Middle East where the first paper mill was founded in Samarkand around 751. In Bagdhad, they invented a method to make thicker paper which helped turn it into an industry.

By the 9th century: Arabs made books even lighter and made covers of leather over paste board. They were using paper regularly, but for important books like the Quran, they still used vellum.

By the 5th century CE: a similar bark paper parchment was used by the Mayans and Mesoamerica, until the Spanish conquest.

Note: parchment is made from reeds and bark. Paper is made from pulp, rags, and plant and cellulose fibers.

An Evening With Heathens

Sunday evening my group, Morgantown Atheists, had an evening at the local UU church to talk about heaven and hell around the world throughout time. We had a good turnout, including a Christian and a WVU professor of history, both of whom had never been there before. We all thought it was rather funny that the heater had been turned on in the church sometime before, so it was 99°. At least it was a dry heat. So we were sort of practicing in case we were wrong.

One of our regular members, Jason, brought his wife, Alise, who is a Christian. I actually met Alise in the blogosphere when she wrote that excellent article awhile ago called Surviving a Conversation With An Atheist, about what stereotypical assumptions not to make when you talk to one of us. So it was really neat to meet her in person then go out to dinner afterward with everyone and talk a bit more.

Unfortunately we didn't do much more than scratch the surface of what Alise believes, but my main goal was to make sure she was welcome and that she had an opportunity to at least share what her church teaches. (I should also note, Alise is extremely well spoken and seemed perfectly capable of handling her own!) But sometime over coffee I'd love to know more about what Alise believes herself, which she says is "complicated".

Anyway, she sent me a message this morning saying that she had blogged about her evening out with us heathens and it was so well-written I wanted to share it with you. Here it is, in its entirety:

Heaven and Hell with Atheists
by Alise Write

I've been meaning to attend a meeting of the local atheist group with Jason for a while now, but I've been unable to make it work due to conflicting schedules. When he told me that the group was going to be discussing heaven and hell this week and in light of some of the reading I've been doing recently, I thought it would be interesting to go and see what these folks had to say (the 99 degree temperature in the church where we met was cause for much mirth throughout the evening!).

Kleptocracies and How They Gain Public Support

I'm reading a very interesting book right now called Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. In it he talks about kleptocracies and how they maintain their power even though they basically take from the common people.

Kleptocracy: a government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal; rule by a thief or thieves; a government where officials are politically corrupt and financially self-interested; A government characterized by rampant greed and corruption.

I'm reading the Kindle version, so this is from location 4794 of 8299:

What should an elite do  to gain popular support while still maintaining a more comfortable lifestyle than commoners? Kleptocrats throughout the ages have resorted to a mixture of four solutions:

1. Disarm the populace, and arm the elite.


2. Make the masses happy by redistributing much of the tribute received, in popular ways.


3. Use the monopoly of force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing violence.


4. Construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy.

Sound familiar? Here's the rest of what Diamond says about number 4:

Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs, just as do modern established religions. But the supernatural beliefs of bands and tribes did not serve to justify central authority, justify transfer of wealth, or maintain peace between unrelated individuals. When supernatural beliefs gained those functions and became institutionalized, they were thereby transformed into what we term a religion.

Hawaiian chiefs were typical of chiefs elsewhere, in asserting divinity, divine descent, or at least a hotline to the gods. The chief claimed to serve the people by interceding for them with the gods and reciting the ritual formulas required to obtain rain, good harvests, and success in fishing.

Chiefdoms characteristically have an ideology, precursor to an institutionalized religion, that buttresses the chief's authority. The chief may either combine the offices of political leader and priest in a single person, or may support a separate group of kleptocrats (that is, priests) whose function is to provide ideological justification for the chiefs. That is why chiefdoms devote so much collected tribute to constructing temples and other public works, which serve as centers of the official religion and visible signs of the chief's power.

Besides justifying the transfer of wealth to kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits to centralized societies. First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other - by providing them with a bond not based on kinship. Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.

Very interesting! As I read this, I noticed some elements in how the U.S. is run or how certain parties are trying to steer the country. Of course, there are elements in other countries as well, but I know the U.S. better so I won't comment on them. What are your thoughts on how governments today use these methods to maintain their comfortable lifestyle at a higher rate than what the common people have?

Exploring the Historicity of the Bible and Jesus

I think I met Nicholas Bruzzese on Facebook, but now I can't remember. Not that it matters as much as the fact that I now call him a friend. Awhile ago he and his friends down in Melbourne Australia started a podcast called The Skeptic's Testament. As you know, I have a thing for podcasts because I can do mundane tasks while learning about new things from interesting people.

And Nicholas and his friends are very interesting. They tackle the bible from a scholarly perspective and I always learn something from every episode.

One thing that seems to be a big controversy is the historicity of Jesus. Did he exist? Before I heard the Skeptic's Testament, I had met another biblical scholar who told me that the consensus among the people who study biblical history is that he did. But he never really explained.

I used to believe that Jesus didn't exist. I know a lot of atheists hold to this belief, and while I don't have the tools to prove them wrong, when it comes to issues that I am not an expert in (most things, actually) I look to see what the consensus is, as that's a pretty good starting point. What do most experts say? We all have to do this in different areas of our lives. That's the nature of being interdependent as social creatures. I defer to my husband when it comes to cars and mechanical things, I listen to my doctor (and maybe get a second opinion) because she knows more than me about the human body, etc. We get to stand on the shoulders of giants.

So after listening to all of the episodes of The Skeptic's Testament, I asked Nicholas if he would mind answering some questions about this issue that is so contentious among atheists, yet pretty much agreed upon by scholars. The following are my initial questions and Nicholas' answers. This is part 1 of 2.

Q: Please introduce yourself. What are your credentials in talking about the bible?

Even though I grew up a Christian attending Church with my grandma as a youngster, it wasn’t until my teens that I began to take religion seriously, which began my fundamental literal approach to the Bible. If nothing else all that Bible reading and apologetic research built endurance. I am half way through a formal degree in Divinity, so in other words I haven’t any credentials worth talking about. Some may find it strange, an atheist taking ministry courses which are a part of MDiv, the only two points I will make about this are many of these subjects are interesting in their own right and many would be utterly surprised at just how skeptical such a course can be. It is so rigid in its skepticism, the disconnect we see between pastor and parishioner on biblical fundamentals, such as ‘who are the authors of the four canonical Gospels’ becomes bewilderingly odd. So I hope to bridge the gap among atheists and Christians alike.

Q: In conversations and in listening to your podcast, I've learned that you agree with the critical scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. Can you explain?

The Jesus Horus Link Revisited For Christmas

Quite awhile ago, I shared some information I had found through American Atheists. It was titled What Other Deities Were Born On Jesus' Birthday? I realized after I published it that it might not have been sourced well, but I left it up because it's an example of how even skeptics and atheists trying to disseminate good information can make mistakes. I fell into the trap of an Appeal to Authority when I wrote it. The original information came from American Atheists, and why wouldn't they always be accurate, right? Well, even people or organizations with the best intentions are human and make mistakes.

I listened to The Skeptic's Testament yesterday and they talked about the Jesus/Horus link and myths borrowing from each other in general. I transcribed that part of the podcast for you (the whole episode is great, so if you can, give it a listen):

The Jesus Horus Link is complete rubbish made up by the movie Zeitgeist. Brian Dunning explains in Skeptoid Episode 196 why it's just fabricated conspiracy mongering.

The following is from The Skeptic's Testament, episode 24:

3:27: With the work of people like Robert Price, which many skeptics have read, they

unjustly make the case that all of the Jesus traditions were borrowed from previous sources. Price doesn't even argue that.

It is incorrect to say that one borrowed from the other. Christianity borrowed from Hinduism or Mithraism or vice versa, simply because the nature of history as a forensic science cannot say anything other than that one came after the other.

To establish sharing like that, or borrowing, and taking, would require something very astounding, something that doesn't fossilize. It would require something that history has never dished up to us before.

This is one example of what we're up against.

Firstly, you would have to establish a trade route between the two factions. Then one would have to show that they swapped stories about their holy men, and furthermore, one party or both went home, conflated the information he just learned about the other faction's holy man or men, and then spread that in the community, only about their own holy men.

Porky Pig Proves That We Are Not A Christian Nation

Or you could say, more specifically, Porky Pig shows us that we were not a Christian nation back when this video was made in 1939.



"One Nation Under God, was added in 1954 during the McCarthy era. "In God We Trust" was added onto money in 1956.

What Makes Us Uniquely Human?

The other day, I watched a 3 part special about what makes us uniquely human from the rest of the animals on the planet, namely chimps. It was very interesting and I wanted to share it with you. I'm linking to each full length video and then below I will link to Science Talk's interviews with Alda about the show and other interesting things.

Here's some information from PBS:

After some three and a half billion years of life’s evolution on this planet – and after almost two million years since people recognizable as human first walked its surface – a new human burst upon the scene, apparently unannounced.

It was us.

Until then our ancestors had shared the planet with other human species. But soon there was only us, possessors of something that gave us unprecedented power over our environment and everything else alive. That something was – is – the Human Spark.

What is the nature of human uniqueness? Where did the Human Spark ignite, and when? And perhaps most tantalizingly, why?

In a three-part series broadcast on PBS in January 2010, Alan Alda takes these questions personally, visiting with dozens of scientists on three continents, and participating directly in many experiments – including the detailed examination of his own brain.

Why Do Christians Hate The ACLU?

Because I'm sure many just see it as a title, or an acronym, and recall their mention in the news involving lawsuits, lets start by answering a basic: What is the ACLU?

American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles. It was founded to assist in defending the rights of citizens as granted by the United States Constitution. At the time, the three biggest concerns were freedom of speech (for anti-war protesters), civil rights for blacks (and other minority races), and equal rights for women. On their site, the ACLU proclaims themselves as a "guardian of liberty, working [...] to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."

This is the group who has time-and-time again gone to bat for the 'little guy' to insure their Constitutional rights as a citizen and a human are upheld. The Christian's very doctrine urges them to help the weak, the sick, the poor, the unfortunate, the 'little guy'. So why do so many Christians harbor such vitriol and hate towards the ACLU?

The Greatest Destruction of Knowledge

Cyril of Alexandria was born around 376CE and rose to power as the Pope of Alexandria during the peak of the Roman Empire's rule there. He is credited with leading the charge against Nestorius in the First Council of Ephesus, where the divinity and caricature of Jesus Christ were debated. The Roman Catholic church eventually bestowed sainthood upon him, counting him among the 'Church Fathers' and 'Doctors of the Church', and also titling him as a Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers.

History might credit him with a much darker deed though, not surprisingly one the church usually fails to mention or attempts to brush under the rug. Although not official of course, some have referred to him as the patron saint of arsonists. His leadership possibly brought about what is probably the single most destructive annihilation of knowledge in human history.

JFK Had the Right Idea

I stumbled upon a transcript on the National Public Radio site awhile-back. It was a speech made by John F. Kennedy in 1960, given to a group of Protestant ministers a few months before the election. JFK was a devout Catholic, but he was also had a solid understanding of the separation of church and state; this speech has some excellent excerpts that exemplify this. JFK was the first Catholic elected president, and during the elections other religious groups (primarily the Protestant group) were concerned about rumors that he would send an ambassador to the Vatican and be taking direction from the Pope. As it turned-out, it was Reagan who established the first ambassador to the Vatican in 1984.

Scientific Explanation For Supernatural Events

Most people look back on history, and see supernatural explanation attached to events that we can now explain scientifically. The sun setting and rising, the weather, crops growing and dieing, lightning, tides, etc. One of the things that still amazes me though is how so many religious people cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus clinging to a belief that the supernatural explanations in the Bible really are supernatural events; even though there are scientific explanations for most.

Most of us (skeptics, non-believers, etc) know there is no historical, archeological, or other scientific evidence for the Israelites residing in and exodus from Egypt. But if we suspend our skepticism for a moment, could there be some scientific explanation for some of the supernatural events?

Ten plagues. Ten scientific explanations.

Congress Goes to Recess - Secular Successes and Failures So Far This Year

As nonbelievers I think 'separation of church and state' issues tend to show up on our radar much more easily than it does for believers. Too few believers realize that separation of church and state is what allows them to practice their flavor of Christianity. So many who push for more Christian influence in government don't seem to realize that they might end up disagreeing with the flavor that comes to power. If only more believers realized this, I think we would have so many more supporters of the separation of church and state.

The 111th Congress has gone to recess for their August break. Ill-timed I think, considering all the stir with bills and propositions and initiatives, dealing with the economy and health care reform. But it is their 'scheduled vacation' and-all, so there's nothing we can do about it.

The Secular Coalition for America has listed some of the successes and failures in the separation of church and state fight from this year so far. I thought them worth sharing; especially since it seems we hear about these in the news when they are being argued over, but the results seem to be slipped into the news as an afterthought.

Its Time For Some New Currency

Oh what a mistake it was adding 'In God We Trust' to the United States currency.



It started with coins in 1864, gained new legs with the motto in 1956, then made its debut on paper currency in 1957.

2010 Mythicist Prize

So, my clever friends, here's an interesting contest. You could win $1,000 for writing an essay about the origins of christianity as well as the fact that jesus never existed. Anyone interested? Let us know if you are so we can pray for you I mean so we can cheer you on. LOL

I know some of you are quite knowledgeable on this subject. Anything you'd like to share with us along your way would be greatly appreciated, too. We love to learn here at HDC.

Here's the deal:

Announcing the 2010 Mythicist Prize

The Mythicists' Forum, a consortium of New Testament scholars, together with American Atheists, Inc., have the pleasure to announce the 2010 Mythicist Prize.

THE PRIZE

The sum of $1,000 (U.S.) will be awarded to the author of a submitted essay which, in the opinion of the judges, sheds light on the origins of Christianity and, at the same time, supports the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.

ELIGIBILITY

Anyone is eligible to submit an essay. The prizewinning contribution will be published in 2010, along with submissions of distinction which merit an Honorable Mention. The publisher will be announced at the time of the award.

The Resurrection Never Happened

Neece posted on the Codex Sinaiticus a few weeks ago. I've been digging around, reading it (a little) and about it, and was formulating a reply to add to her article. After a bit of writing, I decided I should just make it a separate article.

Let me start with a little background information. Many Christians mistakenly assume that the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) are independent accounts of the life of Jesus. Thus they assume that four corroborated eyewitnesses prove his existence, and the validity of every story told of him. Several facts knock this premise on its ear; but somehow Christians hold fast to their belief still.

First, Luke starts his book by stating that he is drawing up accounts "as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" (in case that is too cryptic, he is admitting these were the stories told to him; that he was not an eyewitness). Second, we have historical and archeological information that indicates the new testament books were written after 45 CE at the earliest; most were after 90 CE. Third, we have in depth analysis and research that has resulted in plenty of proof that three of the four copy from another. Yet still many Christians think them all perfect accounts of the life of Jesus. Even his existence cannot be proven absolutely.

Most scholars agree that Mark was written first, and the other three had a copy or version of Mark they built their work from. The most common hypothesis currently is that Matthew used Mark or a version of Mark (M) in conjunction with the Q document (an as-yet undiscovered document). Luke used Mark and the Q document; as well as at least one other source (L), possibly two (J). The gospel of John came last, in addition to being very obviously written by a Greek (when original versions are examined). "The Gospel [of John] certainly does not appear to have been written by an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, which is who John the disciple is portrayed as in Gospel stories." John appears to use Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but takes many liberties by using "eloquent Greek prose for the speeches of Jesus" instead of just translating. [SOURCE]

Most of you probably knew this, or knew of it in general, so I'll get on with the "new" information.

Conversations With christians - Beth 3 - Where Do We Go From Here? EDIT

I got another email from Beth! We are still on the topic of cherry-picking, but deal with a few more issues. Here you go, my friends. Your comments are always welcome.

EDIT: Johnny and GMNightmare commented below and I agreed completely with what they said. So I sent her another email a minute ago with that information as an addendum. Since I felt it was important and also sent it to Beth, I wanted to add it to the post, because it all fits right in. Thanks, guys, you're so awesome!

This "cherry picking" issue is really starting to bug me, honestly. I always viewed cherry picking as using only certain parts of things instead of incorporating the whole for your own convinence. If that is the case, I can assure you I am not. It would only be such if I were to view the Bible as entirely true and without flaws, which I do not. If I were honestly picking and choosing for my benefit then I would be saying all of it was authentic, but then excluding parts of it that redefined the selected part. For example, saying that Jesus was a real man who lived and taught as described in the New Testament does not change anything in the Old Testament. Jesus never stated that the Old Testament laws were the laws of the God he was referring to. I do not mean to sound rude, but I study the Bible very often and it baffles me where you heard such a thing. He does speak of Moses, however that is about the only specific reference that points to the earlier books. He also reads from Isiah, but that does not deal with the law of God, it is mainly about his nature.

Cherry-Pick: Verb: to choose the best items from a selection for oneself, often in an unfair manner.

And what part of selecting choice bits of the bible that you see fit to use, and discarding the rest is not cherry-picking? It's the very definition thereof. But no amount of definitions, or explanations or logic can budge you from your worldview, so let's move on. It doesn't matter why you choose choice bits and throw the rest out, the fact is that you do, at your personal discretion.

Jesus refers to the law of the old testament and the prophets:
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
~ Jesus says he approves of the old testament laws and the prophets. He has no objection to the cruelties of the old testament, and he says those laws are binding on everyone forever.

Codex Sinaiticus: The Oldest Bible Holds Surprises

The Codex Sinaiticus, which means 'the Sinai Book' holds a special place in history. And now the whole world has access to it for free. Here, let the website explain. This is from their about page:

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.

The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the reconstruction of the Christian Bible's original text, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.

First, the many corrections are quite telling, spanning the centuries. Letters, words and whole sentences are added or removed. The books are in a different order, and there are some books in there that have since been removed. The codex is dated to the middle of the 4th century. This is one of the earliest manuscripts. The only other is at the vatican, so therefore out of the reach of the public.

Oh Jesus!

I was having a conversation with my friend Steve earlier about Jesus. Was there a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua walking around the Fertile Crescent around 2000 years ago, preaching the end of days? Does it matter? This is my conclusion. No, not really. We'll never know the truth of it, and it doesn't matter anyway.

Steve says the majority of scholars feel that there was such a guy. I've been under the impression for many years that the biblical Jesus never existed. But I think it's just an exercise in scholarship and semantics, really.

Here's where I started:

• Josephus was the nearest contemporary to Jesus, and he never met him.


• All the gospels were written 40-80 years after the supposed crucifixion. None of the gospel writers or Paul/Saul ever met Jesus.


• The Romans were meticulous record keepers back then. Not a word of the uppity Jew named Yeshua/Jesus whom they had to crucify.


• Never a word of the miracles in Roman record keeping either.

Here is what he said:

Happy Treaty of Tripoli Day!

The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated while George Washington was president; eventually ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 7th, 1797; and then signed by President John Adams on June 10th, 1797. Although this treaty is no longer in effect today, Article 11 provides some significant insight into the infancy of the United States as a nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.