Some lost sayings of jesus

Since it is Sunday, one is allowed to be irreverent. In this list saying, Jesus says heaven is for males only.

In vs 114 of the gospel of Thomas, Jesus tells Peter thus

I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.

A challenge to the christians

And I hope those friends of Ark and John Zande can take it up.

A fellow named Dr. Ray Higgins has asked that anyone who can prove with validity that Jesus lived and walked out da grave to present that evidence to him and he will pay all your living expenses until his last.

Since I don’t claim to have as much money, any one with this information will get a standing ovation from my clan😁.

And a bonus question. Most if not all Christians take Christmas day(25th December) as the birth date of Jesus but Easter shifts depending on the weather. One asks, if as Paul alludes in Corinthians, if Jesus is not risen, then the faith is in vain, why is Easter not taken seriously?

In the video below, he repeats the challenge from 20:24

a question about the Koran

the regular readers of this spot know our position on Jesus H. Christ.

they also know what we think of the bible and by extension religious books.

Muslims think of their religion as the only true™ one.

and of the Koran as coming straight from the gods.

the Koran in many places makes references to H. Christ.

can we not safely conclude it is just a mishmash of stories just as the other religious books, or worse?

Shakespeare did not exist

No, this is not true. That title is my attempt at clickbait. I hope it works.

So if you are reading this, I guess the clickbait worked and we are in business. This post has nothing to do with Shakespeare. We are not going to discuss a pound of flesh or to do or not to do or even much ado about nothing. But because we have mentioned Shakespeare, we may say the world is just a stage and each one must play their part and depart.

Many times when I blog or tweet about Christianity, there is some backlash from religionists who claim atheists are only against their religion. The last census we had put the percentage of Christians in Kenya at above 80%. Anytime I throw a stone, there is 8 in 10 chance, it will fall on a person who claims to be a Christian. Most of these believers think without their death cult, we would have no laws. That society would be living in a state of debauchery and anarchy. Voodoo believers are not knocking on doors are carrying open air crusades in our neighbourhoods. Maybe, just maybe if Christians kept their beliefs a private matter, they would not be a subject of interest. Just saying.

When I have written Jesus did not exist, I have been often asked if Socrates, Buddha or Confucius lived. The point here being that as historical figures, there is scant information regarding their lives and they should be treated the same way we treat Jesus. I don’t know about other atheists, but no one is going to hell because they think Socrates is a creation of Plato. In fact, you will not be punished by anyone for thinking the Republic is Plato’s Utopia. That it is not possible to have such a government of philosopher kings. In general, it has no real world effects whether one doubts the existence of Socrates. For all his teachings, Buddha said live the good life. But the Christians make extra-ordinary claims about their Jesus with a rider that those who don’t believe will suffer for eternity plus one.

I demand more to work with. The gospels will not do. They are inconsistent and contradict each other. Your pastor’s testimony will not cut it either. If my life or any other life is to depend on the sayings of Jesus, you are going to have to work hard to give evidence that he lived. Until you are able to do this, don’t bring up Julius Caesar or Buddha.

god came down for what

This being our 1001 post on this site, we ask with Celsus

But that certain Christians and all Jews should maintain, the former that there has already descended, the latter that there will descend, upon the earth a certain God, or son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth righteous, is a most shameless assertion, and one the refutation of which does not need many words. He is said by the Christians to have already come, but by the Jews that his advent as Messiah is still future. What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part of God? Was it in order to learn what goes on amongst men? Does he not know all things? And if he does know, why does he not make men better? Is it then not possible for him, by means of his divine power, to make men better, unless he send some one for that special purpose? Then God does know all things indeed, but does not make men better, nor is able to do so by His divine power! If God Himself will come down to men, then he has left his own abode, although if you were to change a single one, even the least, of things on earth, all things would be overturned and disappear.

Now I suppose God, being unknown amongst men, and deeming himself on that account to have less than his due, would desire to make himself known, and to make trial both of those who believe upon him and of those who do not, like those of mankind who have recently come into the possession of riches, and who make a display of their wealth; and thus they testify to an excessive but very mortal ambition on the part of God. God does not desire to make himself known for his own sake, but because he wishes to bestow upon us the knowledge of himself for the sake of our salvation, in order that those who accept it may become virtuous and be saved, while those who do not accept may be shown to be wicked and be punished. After so long a period of time, then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives, but neglect to do so before? It is perfectly manifest that they babble about God in a way that is neither holy nor reverential, like those who in the Bacchic mysteries introduce phantoms and objects of terror.

The belief has spread among them, from a misunderstanding of the accounts of these occurrences, that after lengthened cycles of time, and the returns and conjunctions of planets, conflagrations and floods are wont to happen. Because after the last flood, which took place in the time of Deucalion, the lapse of time, agreeably to the vicissitude of all things, requires a conflagration, this made them give utterance to the erroneous opinion that God will descend, and come down bearing fire like a torturer.

Enquiring minds want to know

The Easter myth

In my list of people occupying the lowest rank in society, the so called scum of society, I have politicians, police and pastors. I find pastors with access to the internet the worst type of persons. They are likely to have read volumes of tracts showing the impossibility of the bible narratives but still spread them as truth, gospel truths.

Pastor James Miller in his recent post has decided to convince his followers and anyone who happens on his site that the story of Jesus is factual.

He starts by telling us

Years ago I made an intentional exploration of the question of whether or not God was real.  I made a point of studying everything I could about it.  I read the holy books of many different religions with only one question in mind – could any of this be true?

and it is only fair for us to ask what were his findings.

Without giving us an answer for the above story, he moves on to write

One of the tests scholars may use to evaluate the validity of a historical claim is called “the criterion of embarrassment.” They say that if a story from history is embarrassing to the author or to the hero of the story, it is probably true.

and I guess you know where this is going.

I will not venture to quote the rest of his balderdash but I would like to offer a counter explanation. One, if the story of Jesus was meant to fulfill prophesy as the christian claims, then descriptions of a humble background are not embarrassing but actually buttress the story they are spreading. Lookie, he was a humble prince, he is the son of god, you know the nonsense.

In the case of Jesus narrative, we can safely say he doesn’t know what is being written about him. He has no room to be embarrassed.

It is also untrue that the criterion of embarrassment is always true. Reading about the saints, one gets the feeling that they took pride in some things that most of us would be ashamed to accept in public. There are instances you read of saints who didn’t shower or other things that a modern day pastor would be embarrassed to write about themselves.

In the discussions with the religious leaders of the time, Jesus is said to awe them with his wit, from a young age. In what parallel world would this be embarrassing to someone’s hero.

The christian cannot say the hanging on a cross is embarrassing to their hero. Did they want it written he was killed by the firing squad? Or killed by the guillotine as they used to do in France? The cross instead of embarrassing their hero or them, actually gives them a lot of pride. They like it, wear them everywhere. They claim it is a sign of great sacrifice, they would not want it any other way.

That women were the first at the tomb, instead of being embarrassing is to be seen as a welcome message to women that they too can be leaders and members of the church. There is nothing in Jesus story that can be interpreted as embarrassing to the authors of the story or to the hero of the story. It fits smugly with what they wanted to achieve. They wanted a humble, ass riding, virgin born, cross dying king and that is what they bequeathed the world. To think otherwise, is as my friend would say, to be full of shit.

I contend therefore that the criterion of embarrassment doesn’t in anyway lend support to the Jesus story and in fact destroys it.