This reminds me of when Republicans would claim Obama was the antichrist and some other shit during his presidency.

Will an Implanted Microchip Replace Cards as Vaccine Passports? | Snopes.com

2:48 - Shows the implant.

Would left hand break the prophecy?

At least it's only optional like the vax. But then there was that change to a mandate thing.

I'm skeptical that Matt Groening was the first to think something like this up. Even if he did, why was he given a platform to share it?

Matt Groening and Mike Judge. There's something about cartoons and foresight. Judge went 'Resurrections' with Idiocracy though.

The lulz is not because my ideas are not contestible. The lulz is because you are failing miserablyto contest them. Likely because you have not critically evaluated the ideas you are parroting, as demonstrated by the fact that you can merely copy paste something from a website. A website that is not at all responsive to what was said.

The website starts my addressing the historicity, but then quickly switches the ball.

"And this is where things get especially interesting. Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account."

Note the change here. Determining the wording of Caeser's accounts. They are not disputing that there is reliable evidence that these accounts testify to the existence of Julius Caeser or that they were written by contemporaries. They are arguing that we can not reliably determine the original wording due to the loss of manuscripts, ancient books aren't that good at surviving, and the lesser amount of manuscripts, which would be expected of historical documents vs. religious texts.

But, they then change things again. When they talk about the Caeser manuscripts they are referring to manuscripts. Then... when they talk about the New Testament... "The fragment p52 is dated around AD 125. It only has a few portions of John 18, but it starts a trail that has full manuscripts of the Gospels appearing by the fourth century." See, now we're comparing fragments for new testament vs full manuscripts for Caeser. They're putting a thumb on the scale. A fair comparison would be either fragment to fragment or full manuscript to full manuscript. And by their account, we don't have full manuscripts until about 400 years after his death.

To sum it up the conversation essentially went like this.

"There were no reliable sources for the resurrection."

"Well yeah, but this website shows that those unreliable sources didn't change that much!!!"

To which the obvious response is, it doesn't fucking matter. If we have an account from someone who didn't see the resurrection, that can't prove the resurrection (and even if it did, it wouldn't be sufficient, because there are lots of things people testify to that are obviously bullshit). It doesn't matter if you copy it a billion times without changing a single word, the account sucked to begin with, so it still sucks. Doesn't magically become less shit when it gets older. Whereas if you have an eyewitness account, that would be decent evidence to begin with, at least when it comes to the existence of a particular figure. Its reliability degrades over time through transcription, but even so it will remain better than an account that was worthless to begin with.

As for why people died for believing in that, two clear possibilities. One, that it was all bullshit, because there is no evidence of people who actually would have seen Jesus post resurrection being killed for that belief. The other possibility, which would also be the best explanation for anyone who died later on, is that they genuinely believed it, and were wrong. Tons of people believe idiotic things. See exhibit A, this topic. Sometimes, people even die because of that. Just because the 9/11 hijackers believed there were 72 virgins awaiting them doesn't mean Mohammed flew to the moon on a pegasus. 

So, yeah. Stand by my lulz.

Why by 2025?

padib said: JWeinCom said: The lulz is not because my ideas are not contestible. The lulz is because you are failing miserablyto contest them. Likely because you have not critically evaluated the ideas you are parroting, as demonstrated by the fact that you can merely copy paste something from a website. A website that is not at all responsive to what was said. The website starts my addressing the historicity, but then quickly switches the ball. "And this is where things get especially interesting. Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account." Note the change here. Determining the wording of Caeser's accounts. They are not disputing that there is reliable evidence that these accounts testify to the existence of Julius Caeser or that they were written by contemporaries. They are arguing that we can not reliably determine the original wording due to the loss of manuscripts, ancient books aren't that good at surviving, and the lesser amount of manuscripts, which would be expected of historical documents vs. religious texts. But, they then change things again. When they talk about the Caeser manuscripts they are referring to manuscripts. Then... when they talk about the New Testament... "The fragment p52 is dated around AD 125. It only has a few portions of John 18, but it starts a trail that has full manuscripts of the Gospels appearing by the fourth century." See, now we're comparing fragments for new testament vs full manuscripts for Caeser. They're putting a thumb on the scale. A fair comparison would be either fragment to fragment or full manuscript to full manuscript. And by their account, we don't have full manuscripts until about 400 years after his death. See, they're not in any way attesting to the accuracy of the sources themselves (although they try to switch the ball back at the end), they're just saying that the New Testament wording changed less from the earliest fragments to its modern form than certain documents attesting to Caeser. Which, I'll just for the sake of ease accept as that contention as true. It's probably bullshit, but I don't know enought about sourcing historical documents to show that. But, even taking everything they say as true, it is a rather laughable argument. Essentially it boils down to, "Hey, we've got a little itty piece of John: 18 from 100 years after Christ died. Clearly everything the Bible said must be true. And, anyone with critical thinking abilities can only respond with lulz. That is not enough evidence to establish anything. If you think that's less evidence than we have for Caeser (it's not) then you shouldn't believe that Caeser existed either.  So, you have failed completely to dispute the fact that there is no contemporary source testifying to either the fact that Jesus lived, much less that he was resurrected. There are on the other hand tons of sources on Caeser, even if we should take exact wording with a grain of salt. The more important point that your copypasta missed is that nobody is attesting to anything as specific as the resurrection for Julius Caeser. Nobody is claiming to know anything that specific, because that would be a stupid claim to make. As for why people died for believing in that, two clear possibilities. One, that it was all bullshit, because there is no evidence of people who actually would have seen Jesus post resurrection being killed for that belief. The other possibility, which would be the best explanation for anyone who died later on, is that they genuinely believed it, and were wrong. Tons of people believe idiotic things. See exhibit A, this topic. Sometimes, people even die because of that. Just because the 9/11 hijackers believed there were 72 virgins awaiting them doesn't mean Mohammed flew to the moon on a pegasus.  So, yeah. Stand by my lulz. Why are you so pompous though, do people you talk to enjoy that about you? It's trashy. Did you even read the quora commentary? It's filled with answers. Stand by your lulz I couldn't care less. Definitely doesn't make my opinion of you any brighter. Read and educate yourself a bit: Historical Sources for Jesus To answer, this is a list of contemporary* sources that mention Jesus: The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Mark The Gospel of Luke The Gospel of John Tacitus’ Annals A letter by Mara bar Serapion Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus Passing of Peregrinus by Lucian of Samosata *Within 100 years roughly. Peregrinus is slightly farther than that but it’s close enough so I’ll count it. Now, you’ve probably noticed a couple main things: 1: I listed the gospels The gospels are considered historical sources by historians. Be careful whenever anyone asks a question saying “aside from the Gospels…” That person is trying to selectively choose the data to suit their theories (Texas sharpshooter fallacy). This is a big no-no in intellectual fields (especially the sciences), although armchair historians still attempt it on a semi-regular basis. Furthermore, each of these sources has an impressive historical certification. For instance, we have 5,000 gospel manuscripts dating to within 40 years of authorship. In contrast, we have 33 within 750 years for all of Tacitus’ writings combined. Additionally, four biographies is not a small number. Tiberius has only that many, and he was the emperor of Rome. (And Cassius Dio, the author of one of these, was not even born until a century after Tiberius’ death). It’s also worth noting that the gospels explicitly state which people were present at the main events so that the stories could be corroborated. This virtually guarantees that they are primary sources. 2: I listed all four gospels separately This is not a mistake. While it’s obvious the Gospels are inter-related, they are also clearly four separate historical accounts, not just one divergent text. This diagram is helpful: This is called the synoptic problem, but the TLDR is that it’s virtually impossible to reduce the 3 first gospels to anything fewer than 3 original sources. John is off on his own because his gospel is nothing like the other 3. People will tell you the Bible was “written” in 300s AD, but that is false. The Bible was not “written” at all. It is basically an anthology, a collection, of other written works. The actual accounts of Jesus were all written separately before 100AD, and only assembled in the 100s-300s. Further, we have manuscripts dating to pre-300, so we know they were not edited at the time of assembly. 3: Half the sources for Jesus are in the Bible This makes it very difficult to argue that “historical Jesus” is any different from “bible Jesus,” because MOST of the information we have of Jesus was later incorporated into the Bible. Any way you slice it, the Bible should carry as much weight as any of the other sources. 4: None of the other sources are specifically aimed at Jesus. Tacitus’ Annals cover the entire state of the Roman Empire at the time. Josephus’ Antiquities likewise mostly covers the Judeo-Roman war. Mara’s letter is just a letter, not a history, and Lucian mostly wrote satire about Roman life. While the gospels each dedicate a small book to the life of Jesus, the other documents spend, at most, a few paragraphs describing him. This makes it hard to construct a “historical Jesus” aside from the gospel So, what’s the takeaway? The sources all agree on 3 main points: Jesus was a real person who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by Pontius Pilate Three days after Jesus’ execution, his tomb was empty Jesus’ disciples claimed they had seen him rise from the dead. Obviously, not all historians are Christian (or atheist), but if you question any of these 3 you’ll probably be laughed out of any serious discussion, because all the documents agree on these 3. Additionally, no ancient sources largely question the Bible account of Jesus. This is not a statement in favor of Christianity; as I mentioned earlier, only 4 sources dedicated to the life of Jesus exist. The others all mention him offhand or briefly. And yes, I’m aware of several small disagreements with other historical sources (such as the census). But those are largely immaterial. DISCLAIMER: I did my best to answer this question purely as a historian with as little bias as possible. Please keep your comments in the same light. Some Common Questions: But what about the council of Nicea? Didn’t they edit the Bible afterwards? This is a very common misconception, but no. In fact, the Council of Nicea did not even discuss biblical canon. It was not even on the agenda. Why should it be? Those who have been paying careful attention will have noticed that the manuscripts we have date to 130AD. This means that the documents were already written by that point… two hundred years before the council convened. Why should they re-discuss what had already been canon for two hundred years? And even if they did, why should we listen to them? We have the original document, who cares what people two centuries later had to say about it. But the Romans kept very good records… Why only four accounts for Jesus? Well, mainly because four full accounts is considered a very good record. No, scratch that. Four full accounts is considered a spectacular historical record. Let me put this into comparison: Tiberius Caesar, the Emperor of Rome from 14–37 AD (Jesus’ time) has only 5 biographical accounts: Paterculus' Roman History (30 AD) Josephus' Antiquities (93 AD) Tacitus' Annals (117 AD) Suetonius' Twelve Caesars (121 AD) Cassius Dio' Roman History (229 AD) In comparison, Jesus, an itinerant preacher from backwater Judea, has four accounts all dating before 110 AD. In essence, he has about as much written about him as the Roman Emperor. But isn’t the Bible just a collection of folklore? Why should we treat it as any more real than the Greek myths? Well, most of the Old Testament is, and those who are intellectually honest will admit that. The problem is that the New Testament, specifically the Gospels, cannot be considered folklore by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the author of Luke explicitly states that he’s writing a history. Paul says that if Jesus didn’t actually die “all our faith is meaningless,” and several of the accounts actually name eyewitnesses to the events, and go to great trouble to point out that some of them are still alive as of the time of the writing. Now, obviously, they aren’t still alive 2000 years later for us to go and ask them, but the fact that the accounts mention specific eyewitnesses still living is a huge blow to the “folklore” argument. Furthermore, we have to remember that Christianity was illegal in Rome until 313 AD (punishable by death for much of that period). One could argue that the Gospels are an elaborate hoax, but a casual campfire story which spread out of control simply does not hold water: people don’t casually spread stories which lead to them being executed. But how do we know the story wasn’t changed afterwards? Well, the whole reason to bring up the number of manuscripts is precisely so we know the record hasn’t been changed. Since we have so many manuscripts, we have a very good idea of what the story looked like in 100AD, 200AD, 300AD, and so forth. We just have to look at the manuscripts we found from 100, 200, 300 (respectively). From here: https://kevinschristianity.quora.com/Historical-Sources-for-Jesus

Why am I pompous? Because I feel like it. Couldn't give a fuck less if you think I'm trashy.

Actual photo of me. :)

Although, I don't see it as being pompous, I see it as calling out bad ideas and logic for what they are. I'm not going to respond to everything you want to copy and paste, because it takes about 2 seconds to copy and paste a website, and a lot more than that to actually explain why the logic is flawed. It is essentially a strategy of piling up more and more bullshit, because I cannot possibly address every bad argument on the internet. Especially when, again, this source does not actually support your argument as it is not claiming anything about the historicity of Jesus vs Caesar, or claiming that the resurrection is verified. So, lulz.

As for getting educated, I'm good on that. The sign of being educated is actually being able to synthesize information and turn it into something, i.e. your own argument. So, maybe try that... with someone else though. Because at this point I'm essentially just arguing with google search results, so...

You don't need to know the prophecies to judge them vehemently.
A "prophecy" by it's very definition means to "predict" something that may or may not occur in the future.

Any rational thinking, logical person would thus discard such garbage for a more evidence, logical based approach.

For example... You can make a different, random prediction/prophecy every day, eventually probability mathematics will win-out and you will eventually end up being correct.
Doesn't mean the prophecy is correct however or is coming from some "special source of truth" that is pertinent to the prophecy... Those need to be judged on a different set of merits.
It's all a game of chance. Not truth.

No religion has evidence to backup it's assertions. Period.

We know Julius Cesar lived due to...
- Caesars written works on the Gallic and Civil Wars in which he participated.
- Extensively documented by historians during his life.
- Monuments and coins bearing Caesars likeness and name being ubiquitous from the era.
- Without Caesar, the entire historical timeline of the Roman empire ends up being a rubbish mess.
- Caesars namesake carried on through his heirs.
- Acknowledged by competing/enemy empires of the era and also written in their historical works.
- Caesars Temple to signify his remains and personal belongings/achievements. (Cremated.)

The "end times" will happen eventually. It is a part of life.
If we humans don't royally screw the planet, the sun will eventually turn into a Red Giant and roast everything.

Nothing lasts forever.

But for thousands of years, Theists have been arguing about an "end time" coming.
How many thousands of years worth of chances are you going to give them? Eventually a prophecy that is as vague and wildly applicable as that will eventually turn out to be correct due to how the universe functions... Completely separate to your non-proven God.

Well.. Arguably, religion doesn't evolve. Peoples interpretations of religion evolves. Well some.
There are some denominations that stand-by a literal interpretation of the Bible, including all it's hate, death, violence, misogyny, homophobia and cruelty.

Once it was normal for women to serve men, for the LGBTQI community to be chastised by conservative Christians... But the interpretation of the Biblical text changed to accommodate those issues.

No. It's not possible.
Because once your prophecies are proven incorrect, they just get "reinterpreted" and the cycle begins again.

People have spent THOUSANDS of years constantly telling people the "end times are cometh". - Here we are.

There is no evidence Christ fully died, decomposed and was revived.
There is no evidence Christ was a divine individual or the Son of any kind of God or a God himself.

But I am going to chime in here... Because what the fuck do I know about death?

I have done road crash rescues where a car was turned completely into a chunk of solid steel... Where the passenger walked away without a bruise... And the driver was like a crushed tomato... With no identifiable remains.

I have scaled down the side of high cliffs and held onto a woman for 12 hours, keeping my hand on her wound to try and keep her alive while she bled out all over me.

I have fought the largest fires in the planets history... And see how it destroys everything in it's path, except for a small home with a family inside... Survived entirely by chance.

I could keep going, but I think you get the gist.

People cheat death all the time... It's not divine, sometimes it's chance, sometimes it's training, sometimes it's PPE, sometimes it's preparation.

You just did a word vomit without understanding what the words actually meant and their implications.

Quantum Entanglement (And I will dumb it down as much as possible...) is where two particles are "connected" in a way, so that one action performed on one particle, effects the other particle, irrespective of distance... That means, observing one particle will tell you the result of the other particle.

Think of it as more of a "network cable" between two points in a way.

For A.I it doesn't really mean much, nothing we haven't seen now over shorter distances via the Internet or Ethernet cable.

The Bible is a book written by man interpreted, translated and altered from the original Abrahamic texts... Which is also the same texts that forms the Islamic Quran that Muslims follow and the Torah that the Jewish follow.
All the same stuff, just a different perspective.

I.E. The Bible has the word "Homosexual" in it, which as a word has only existed for a few hundred years, yet conveniently ended up in a book that is thousands of years old? Common. You can do better than this.

Now the fact that you assert that ONLY those who have "faith" (Which by it's definition is blind belief without evidence...) are the only ones who will be "saved" and the others... Well. They get less than an ideal ending... Is just your typical coercion of others by using the power of fear and threats. - Which is a powerful tool to bend people to your indoctrinated ideology. It's blatant bullshit.

If your "apparent" God is willing to subject people, people who may have saved lives by stopping a fire from burning a home down, cutting a person out of a vehicle, parent donating an organ to save their child and more... To eternal torment, damnation, torture and "get their head chopped off" because they won't worship them?
Then that is not a loving, fair or just God and thus your God doesn't deserve recognition or respect... Let alone followers.

I am happy to live an eternity of torment, my conscience will be clear.

What you believe is irrelevant.
People believe all sorts of rubbish, like the world being Flat.

What matters is the evidence.

We aren't at a technological level where Quantum Entanglement can be leveraged in such a way as you describe.

The Bible is the claim, not evidence.

I don't believe in Satan anymore than I believe in your God.

The Bible also says stupid shit like...

We should cut off a woman's hand for defending her husband. - Deuteronomy 25:11-12.
If your Brother dies, you need to have sex with his wife and get her pregnant. - Mark 12:19
God commit genocide and murders everything to make the world less violent. - Genesis 6:11-13.

Let's not forget things like incest, slavery, killing of children and more that the Bible promotes.

It's not a "good" book or a "good" God.

Not to mention the Bibles entire timeline of how the Earth was created and life came to be, completely and UTTERLY contradicts the evidence we have now.
I.E. The Big Bang, Evolution and so forth.

The Bible also does not, will not and can not ever explicitly mention "cryptocurrency" otherwise it's just another rubbish alteration to fit an agenda... You are just trying to shoehorn rubbish to make your belief system more relevant to the current day.

I wasn’t even going to respond to any of your nonsensical ramblings as I quite enjoyed reading them, but when you claim entirely incorrectly that there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar I have to intrude. Absolute bollocks. There is a mountain of evidence for Caesar and mere fragments for the historical character of Jesus. Biblical scholars aren’t even sure if the character is based on a real individual or an amalgamation of eccentric frauds operating at that time. And oh yes, I have researched and researched this topic over a span of twenty years (historian). Also, just as an aside, Jesus’s resurrection isn’t a fact nor could it be a fact; there are to this day zero examples of any previously living thing being brought back to life from the early or late (or any) stages of decomposition. Everything you claim and assert is based on a wildly popular work of fiction that has just been taken way, way too seriously. It strikes me as both funny and scary that around 4.5 billion people on this planet live their entire lives based around ancient fairy tales and to make matters worse, wish to dictate to others how they should live their lives based on said fairy tales.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” - Richard Dawkins