Right In The Childhood. Dem Tags.... CHRISTMAS. post apocalyptic future trust me i'm an accountant dat description
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - digitalmasterx (08/29/2013) [-]
post apocalyptic future

trust me i'm an accountant
User avatar #9 to #1 - thewaronbeingcool (08/30/2013) [-]
And the Jetsons are part of the rich upper class living in the sky.
User avatar #22 to #9 - darkdragonswrath ONLINE (08/30/2013) [-]
So the Jetsons didn't time travel to the past? They just when down to the lower class area?
#11 to #9 - tbagington (08/30/2013) [-]
#15 - coryxyzagain (08/30/2013) [-]
Since other people are putting their 2 cents in about Christianity, so will I.

Mary was a whore and ******* crazy. She had to lie about the impregnation of Jesus because she was engaged to Joseph. She lied to avoid an honor killing or other punishment. This crazy bitch raised Jesus to believe he was divine, to believe he had powers thus sparking all the "miracles" committed by him. Everyone was in on it, actors. As far as being raised from the dead, a simple grave robbery.
User avatar #14 - arkadia (08/30/2013) [-]
Not if it follows the theory that The Flintstones takes places at the same time The Jetsons does, just on the ground floor.
User avatar #3 - trollmobile ONLINE (08/29/2013) [-]
christmas was originally a pagan tradition, the romans simply adopted it into christianity to make christianity more populair with the gaul and brittani.
#4 to #3 - improbable (08/29/2013) [-]
it is illegal to tell the truth. you must be put in retard jail for 1 internet year.
#16 to #3 - hillbillypowpow ONLINE (08/30/2013) [-]
Christmas more takes off the traditions of Saturnalia, and the Roman government wouldn't adopt something to Christianity because Christians wouldn't incorporate Christianity into the Roman state religion (Roman were cool with any religion as long as the also worshiped the Roman pantheon.)
#5 to #3 - anon (08/29/2013) [-]
False. Christians of the day took on traditions of Saturnalia to celebrate the birth of Jesus without being caught by the Romans, who at the time took them as heretics.
#7 to #5 - MattSwan (08/29/2013) [-]
An accountant? I'd follow you to the ends of the earth.
User avatar #6 to #5 - improbable (08/29/2013) [-]
you must be trolling. sure about saturnalia yada yada. but you despise christianity because of your atheism so you dont care what really happened
User avatar #8 - smellyboner (08/29/2013) [-]
celebrates birth of christ

christ never existed
#10 to #8 - thewaronbeingcool (08/30/2013) [-]
Christ existed. The question is whether or not he mad magic powers.
Christ existed. The question is whether or not he mad magic powers.
User avatar #20 to #10 - noblexfenrir (08/30/2013) [-]
The proof is purely biblical (Please don't cite Pliny, Josephus, Tacitus, etc. These have been proven to not be credible sources for the historicity of Jesus.), and even certain biblical accounts contradict, or explain fascinating events that Jesus took part in that weren't mentioned by any locals whatsoever.

The fact is there is little evidence for Jesus specifically, there probably wasn't even a guy named Jesus, the man and story were most likely inspired from someone else (There were numerous people claiming divinity at that time) combined with the prophecies made in the old testament and many "divine markers" explained in sumerian theology.
#24 to #20 - IamSofaKingdom (08/30/2013) [-]
Um, National Geographic did a historical timeline of the disciples and Jesus as the main story of one of their magazines. I own that copy.
Um, National Geographic did a historical timeline of the disciples and Jesus as the main story of one of their magazines. I own that copy.
User avatar #25 to #24 - noblexfenrir (08/30/2013) [-]
I was unaware National geographic was a history journal...oh wait...it isn't.

I'm also going under the assumption it wasn't fully derived from credible evidence as almost 100% of the information that would describe the topic you mentioned, would have had to come from purely biblical accounts.
User avatar #27 to #25 - IamSofaKingdom (08/30/2013) [-]
Roman records. Mostly it followed the travels (geographically where they went and when, which is easily discernible on accounts of other cultures such as the Greek accounts of Peter's visit and the spread of Christianity) and then it goes into how they were murdered (for all but one) which would be records according to the Romans since it isn't even mentioned biblical for several of them. One of them, can't remember the name, was flayed and then crucified. Brutal stuff.

It is awful of you to assume there is no way to get this information when things such as dead languages are often learned in similar ways that these facts are. There is a reason archaeology is still around.
User avatar #28 to #27 - noblexfenrir (08/30/2013) [-]
My apologies I didn't make myself clear in my last post, I'm talking purely of the historicity of Jesus. The historicity of others (Peter as per your example) don't concern me to be honest.
User avatar #29 to #28 - IamSofaKingdom (08/30/2013) [-]
You do realize that the general consensus of all historical scholars, Christian and otherwise, have agreed that a Galilean Jew named Jesus existed right? People with degrees and more knowledge on the subject that the collective minds of this website? If there is enough circumstantial evidence to convince all of those studious minds, then why do you feel like you have some sort of personal enlightenment that exceeds their knowledge?
User avatar #31 to #29 - noblexfenrir (08/30/2013) [-]
"You do realize that the general consensus of all historical scholars"
Source please, I constantly keep hearing this statement yet never has anyone actually provided a source showing this is true. From what I have seen, majority agree that the Jesus in the bible was inspired by a real person though obviously many liberties were taken with the story. However, this is why external sources are needed otherwise, inspiration=/=An actual Jesus.

I don't have any personal enlightenment, they just don't meet the requirement of evidence. It would hold more weight in needing evidence if they were talking about proving the divine sections as well, otherwise I could care less about an actual Jesus existing. However, by simply removing the divine aspects, we are left with what I said before, evidence for nothing more than an inspiration, not an actual man.
User avatar #36 to #31 - IamSofaKingdom (08/30/2013) [-]
Sources were quoted a few comments down...
User avatar #37 to #36 - noblexfenrir (08/30/2013) [-]
I asked for a source for the claim that the majority of historians agree Jesus the man existed. A poll, listing, etc would suffice. A source of someone saying the same thing as if essentially I quoted you.
User avatar #38 to #37 - IamSofaKingdom (08/30/2013) [-]
Robert E. Van Voorst - Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Robert M. Price (an atheist) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61

and a description of why those articles available are reliable.

Typically, when historical evidence of Jesus’ existence is sought, what is meant is evidence “outside of the Bible.” But the Bible is a reliable historical source of evidence for the existence of Jesus and nothing in the Bible has ever been discredited by secular historians. In terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences and the entire New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus’ death. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

There are more than 25,000 ancient manuscripts of parts or all of the New Testament, and there would be many more had the Romans not invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel in A.D. 70

you could also google archaeological sites.
User avatar #23 to #20 - smellyboner (08/30/2013) [-]
you are correct. All the butthurt christians are thumbing down the truth
#26 to #23 - gentlemanpyro (08/30/2013) [-]
I think your fedora is on too tight, No one is butthurt at all, Its just no one cares.
User avatar #34 to #26 - smellyboner (08/30/2013) [-]
yes bc if no one cared they wouldn't thumb my opinion down, right?
#35 to #34 - gentlemanpyro (08/30/2013) [-]
Thumbing you down doesn't mean they care any more than people who didn't
User avatar #12 to #10 - antoniusss (08/30/2013) [-]
There is no proof whatsoever that christ ever existed period.
User avatar #13 to #12 - thewaronbeingcool (08/30/2013) [-]
Most modern scholars agree that he did exist. I couldn't be arsed to go looking for 'legitimate' proof, so I just looked at the Wikipedia's sources.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[12] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".[13] Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[14] James D. G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".[15] Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[16] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[17]
User avatar #19 to #10 - thepyras (08/30/2013) [-]
"mad magic powers" Like, totally wicked, rad magic powers? Like totally wizard magic powers? Like insane, pro-ballin-on-a-budget magic powers?

I don't disagree with you by the way, I just thought that was a funny typo.
#39 - anon (08/30/2013) [-]
Are you all stupid? We don't celebrate christmas only because of the birth of christ, need proof? Just use google.
User avatar #33 - henryfordthegod (08/30/2013) [-]
That would be right

except there are machines because I'm god

also that book lies

They celebrated rocks in positions of the jet's in those wind upper class city's
#30 - anon (08/30/2013) [-]
The birth of Jesus is unknown. December 25th is the Birth-date of the wicked ruler Nimrod. He wears a hat shaped like a fish, called Odis. It is a Babylonian symbol, and mainstream Christians (or at least the ones controlling mainstream Christianity) know this. They "fish" for peoples souls.
User avatar #17 - OsamaBinLadenz (08/30/2013) [-]
Guys. This is supposed to be a funny site. Arguing about religion is not funny.
#2 - quiescat (08/29/2013) [-]
or you know the tree and just about all the tradition around that holiday having nothing to do with Christ. until the church started mixing old with new to make it easier to convert people.
 Friends (0)