{"id":21240,"date":"2023-12-11T07:17:32","date_gmt":"2023-12-11T12:17:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=21240"},"modified":"2024-01-29T07:44:03","modified_gmt":"2024-01-29T12:44:03","slug":"4651-4700","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=21240","title":{"rendered":"4651-4700"},"content":{"rendered":"

(4651) Missing critiques<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is evidence that there were numerous critiques of Christianity written in the early centuries of its existence, but none of these remain in their complete form. They were systematically expunged by Christian enforcers, but we have enough clues from citations to know that they presented a lot of dis-confirming evidence of the church\u2019s claims. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/ia600707.us.archive.org\/17\/items\/NailedTenChristianMythsThatShowJesusNeverExistedAtAllPages3246\/Nailed%20Ten%20Christian%20Myths%20That%20Show%20Jesus%20Never%20Existed%20at%20All-pages-3-246.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Lastly, it is perhaps not surprising but still worth noting that all critiques of Christianity from the early centuries of its existence have been lost. They survive only in brief excerpts quoted in books written by their Christian detractors. The ones that we know of include Celsus\u2019 The True Logos<\/em>, Marcus Cornelius Fronto\u2019s Discourse against the Christians<\/em> and Hierocles\u2019 The Lover of Truth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

According to Augustine and others, the NeoPlatonist philosopher Porphyry of Tyre was a Christian, but that must have been before he wrote Against the Christians<\/em>, fifteen books against what he called \u201ca confused and vicious sect.\u201d It is Porphyry who first realized and showed that the Old Testament book of Daniel was a later forgery and that the \u201cSea\u201d of Galilee is nothing of the kind. Though many Church apologists wrote against him, his own writing survives only in the fragments they quoted.<\/p>\n

Even the Emperor Julian wrote sharp critiques against Christianity in his scathing satire Symposion<\/em> (or Kronia<\/em>), and the three books in his philosophical treatise Against the Galileans<\/em>. Even though Galileans<\/em> only survives in the excerpts from Cyril of Alexandria\u2019s rebuttal, it exposed problems in Christian theology that still hold up today. Eunapius (c. 4th – early 5th century) wrote History against the Christians<\/em> with the explicit aim of critiquing Christian versions of historical events from 270 to 404, or as he put it, \u201cwhen the practice of Christianity was gaining ground and usurping all men’s minds.\u201d For instance, he gives his own take on the claims regarding Constantine’s \u201cconversion.\u201d Despite its anti-Christian bias, many later historians, including Christians, employed it as a source, before it was finally lost (except for fragments). His Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists<\/em> still survives.<\/p>\n

Again, these are only the ones we know about. Add up all these missing pages, books, letters and scrolls from respected writers of the ancient world, and there is not just a lost library, but a string of evidence of Christians seeking to alter the record to cover up the embarrassing absence of Jesus from secular history.<\/p>\n

The missing texts revealed two major themes- that Jesus was inexplicably under-reported by contemporary historians despite the gospel claims of his intense fame, and (2) that the miracles and many of the events described in the gospels did not happen or were plagiarized from previous <\/a>sources.<\/p>\n

(4652) The antitheist perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n

The theist perspective is that we should worship God for no reason other than that he created us. But a more logical take on this concept reveals that there are only three possible realities surrounding this alleged deity, and none of them are good. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/18fhzax\/your_arguments_for_god_do_not_matter_a_brief\/<\/a><\/p>\n

I will keep this short because it’s a very simple concept to explain. Every single time I see a theist trying to argue for the existence of their god(s) whether through convoluted jargon or false “evidence” they never seem to address the antitheist perspective. It’s simple: either way, you’re wrong, because there can only be 3 possible answers to whether god(s) exists.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. There is no god.<\/li>\n
    2. A god exists, created the universe and left all of existence to fend for itself until the end of time, never having contact again and has forgotten about us. Why worship such a thing that isn’t even aware of your existence?<\/li>\n
    3. A god exists and created everything in existence and actively picks and chooses when, where and for whom to intervene with. Every single thing that happens in every single living thing’s life is all part of the divine plan. Some people find success and happiness, while countless children die of terminal cancer. Sounds like a fantastic creator. How can you not hate such a thing?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The point is that if such a being exists (which I do not think it does) how could you worship or proclaim to love it when all it deserves is our hate?<\/p>\n

      Christians have been brainwashed to think that worshiping their god is natural and righteous, despite the fact that (1) this god didn\u2019t do anything to become what he is, (2) does little to nothing to alleviate human and animal suffering, and (3) sports a plan to torture some people forever after they suffer needlessly in this life just because they believe in the wrong god or none at all. Anyone seeing this from the outside spots the problem- Christian worship is a form of <\/a>delusion.<\/p>\n

      (4653) Killing of the first born not limited to babies<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The story in Exodus Chapter 11, where God murders the first born sons of Egypt, is worse than what most people imagine (which is the view that only babies or small children were slaughtered). Actually, it would have included males of all ages who happen to have been the first sons born to their original family. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/18hqvgi\/the_killing_of_the_egyptian_first_born_sons_as\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      The killing of the Egyptian first born sons as told in Exodus is much more insidious than I first thought. And that is the big problem about that story.<\/p>\n

      The killing of the first born sons in Egypt was not limited or specified to be that of babies! First borns would have been of every age: husbands, their first children; widowers, foster carers, single fathers, beggars, and the homeless, even cranky old farts who had one foot in the grave anyway.<\/p>\n

      Essentially, a grandfather (who was the first born son of his parents), his first born and his first grandson were killed. That is a lot of death! This story is extremely ridiculous when you look at it this way.<\/p>\n

      But even worse, what did livestock have anything to do with anything?<\/p>\n

      Yet, Christians carry this book to their churches, claim it be literal truth, and WORSHIP a deity who massacred an innocent, all-age population of first-born males throughout an entire country. Any Christian who claims that the Bible is literal history, and still worships Yahweh, deserves no respect- just unmitigated disgust. And any Christian who sidesteps the problem by saying it is a mythical story still must face the question as to why such disgusting fiction was placed in their <\/a>\u2018holy book.\u2019<\/p>\n

      (4654) Book of Daniel is error-ridden<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Many Christians, especially evangelicals, extol the Book of Daniel as a road map to the end of times. It is allegedly filled the hints of the apocalypse and the return of Jesus. This is, of course, nonsense. But what most Christians don\u2019t know is, neglecting the obvious magical\/mythical elements of this book, that the historical details are in serious error. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/onlysky.media\/jpearce\/the-book-of-daniel-historical-people-places-and-problems\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      The book of Daniel purports to relate the experiences and visions of its title character, a Hebrew noble and prophet, during the\u00a0Babylonian Exile<\/u><\/span><\/a>\u00a0in the 6th<\/span>\u00a0century BCE. As with myriad other marvelous accounts from antiquity, Daniel\u2019s text explicitly (and implicitly) refers to a number of verified individuals, locations, and events.\u00a0Despite these convergences between the story and reality, though, several passages and references conflict with the extrinsic archaeological and written evidence. While the book doubtless conveyed theologically and psychologically resonant messages about national identity, oppression, fidelity, perseverance, vindication, and hope to its intended audience, it is not an inerrant work of history.<\/p>\n

      For purposes of this discussion, we\u2019ll put aside the astounding tales about the lions\u2019 den and fiery furnace and such, as well as the extent to which the prophetic visions did nor did not get the future right, to focus instead on whether the book did or did not get the past right. And the results are\u2026well,\u00a0human<\/i><\/em>, as Mr. Spock would say.\u00a0A few thoughts (by no means comprehensive) about the more problematic passages follow.<\/p>\n

      Adventures in Chronology<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

      Joshua 1:1 in the Aleppo Codex [Aleppo Codex; scanned by http:\/\/www.aleppocodex.org, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]<\/p>\n

      We need not wait long to find an issue.\u00a0 According to Dan. 1:1-2 (NJPS):<\/p>\n

      In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar [II] of Babylon came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it.\u00a0The Lord delivered King Jehoiakim of Judah into his power, together with some of the vessels of the house of God, and he brought them to the land of Shinar [southern Mesopotamia, around Babylon] to the house of his god; he deposited the vessels in the treasury of his god.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Biblical quotes and citations are from the New Jewish Publication Society translation in\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/cite>The Jewish Study Bible<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em>\u00a0(OUP, 2004).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      <\/a><\/a>While Babylonian forces really did invade Judah and deport some of the population to Babylon under King\u00a0Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s<\/u><\/span><\/a>\u00a0leadership, the dating here is now generally acknowledged to be inaccurate.[i]<\/u><\/span><\/a>\u00a0Practicing historians of the period put the third year of\u00a0Jehoiakim\u2019s<\/u><\/span><\/a>\u00a0reign in 606 and Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s conquest of Judah and first siege of Jerusalem in 598\/7 (with the beginning of the exilic period around 597-587).\u00a0In other words, the timing of the pivotal event depicted in the opening lines of Daniel seems to be off by almost a decade.\u00a0\u201cAs for Dan. 1.1-2, it is completely confused, most likely based on a misreading of the narrative\u201d in the passages in 2 Kings 24 and 2 Chronicles 36 describing the Babylonian conquest.[ii]<\/u><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

      Dan. 1 goes on to give the biblical equivalent of a superhero origin story.\u00a0We\u2019re told young Daniel and other bright Judahites taken to Babylon received a three-year education in Chaldean learning, and Daniel developed \u201cunderstanding of visions and dreams of all kinds.\u201d\u00a0(Dan. 1:4-5, 17.)\u00a0 To explain, the\u00a0Chaldeans<\/u><\/span><\/a>\u00a0were the Aramaic-speaking Semitic people who ruled the\u00a0Neo-Babylonian Empire<\/u><\/span><\/a>\u00a0from 626 to 539. At the end of their schooling, Daniel and his comrades were presented to Nebuchadnezzar, who was impressed and ordered them into service in his court (Dan. 1:19).\u00a0 Daniel would remain in Babylon \u201cuntil the first year of King Cyrus\u201d\u00a0(Dan. 1:21).\u00a0The Persian King\u00a0Cyrus<\/u><\/span><\/a>, discussed further below, captured Babylon in 539, decades after the setting of Dan. 1, and famously permitted exiled Hebrews to return to Judah and rebuild, according to both biblical and extra-biblical accounts.<\/p>\n

      Nebuchadnezzar II depicted on the \u2018Tower of Babel stele [Robert Koldewey (10 September 1855 \u2013 4 February 1925), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]<\/p>\n

      Dan. 2 tells the story of our hero\u2019s first dream-reading for King Nebuchadnezzar; his consequent, meteoric promotion to governor of the prosperous, central province of Babylon; and the appointment of his Judahite peers to help him administer that province.\u00a0And like Dan. 1, the chapter starts off with a chronological incongruity, placing its events in \u201cthe second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar\u201d\u00a0(Dan. 2:1).\u00a0 This cannot be accurate on its face. Nebuchadnezzar became king on his father\u2019s death in 605, at least five or six years before conquering Judah, besieging Jerusalem, and initiating the Exile in 598\/7. Moreover, just within the book of Daniel itself, we see an apparent misalignment between Dan. 2:1 and Dan. 1.\u00a0Recall that the first chapter describes a three-year training period under Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s officials before Daniel and his friends are presented to the king and merely made members of the court.\u00a0Without doing eisegetical yoga or essentially adjusting the text, it is difficult to reconcile the timelines and events of Dan. 2 and Dan. 1 satisfactorily.<\/p>\n

      King Takes King<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

      But what\u2019s a year or two (or ten) between friends?\u00a0\u2013 Let us turn our attention from relatively petty chronological discrepancies to matters of greater import\u2014royalty, succession, and conquest.\u00a0By way of background, here\u2019s an overview of the sequence of relevant kings from the perspectives of\u00a0mainstream history<\/u><\/span><\/a>\u00a0on the one hand, and the narrative in Daniel on the other:<\/p>\n

      <\/p>\n

      Two peculiarities in particular are worth some exploration\u2014the identity of the last Neo-Babylonian king, and the identity of \u201cDarius the Mede.\u201d<\/p>\n