I forget, what does he say after this?

Actually Spartans would later ally with the Persians against Athens lmao.

>MADNESS?
>...
>SNYDER--
>kicks
>IS A HACKKKKKK!

THIS
IS
CAKETOWN

they'd do anything to shit on athens
BASED Thebans destroyed though

ZACK SNYDER IS A CLOSETED HOMOSEXUAL!!!

why?
non of the greeks were gay as you perceive it.
they had a mentor and protege mentality and their connection included sex but there was no romance

Athenians were superior warriors.

Overrated scene and shit movie

literally no.

THE GROUND BENEATH YOUR FEET IS A STATE OF GREECE KNOWN AS Σπάρτη

That's gay faggot

>Dude it's not gay as long as there's no queer feelings and shit
Lol I'm more convinced every day that literally all men are actually gay.

While not entirely wrong, that guy phrased things horribly. To the Greeks and Romans, there was no heterosexuality or homosexuality. There was only the concept of manliness that acted as a sexual dividing line.

To the Greeks and Romans, there was only the penetrator and the penetrated. If you were fucking someone else, male or female, it was manly. If you were being fucked, however, you were a fucking disgusting catamite beneath contempt, at least officially.

ZOOMER GET OUT

Attached: 1538166389709.jpg (962x539, 31K)

ACTUALLY THE EMPIRE IS CALLED SPARTAAAAA

You're gay.

>spartans were so gay that they didn't even percieve themselves as gay
Wow, they're so straight..

No, I just like history. The closest I ever came to fucking a man in the ass was your mom.
Nah, by our standards they were totally fucking gay (the Romans significantly less so as they had a heavy stigma on taking it up the ass). But the point is that ancient pagan civilizations had a much different view on sexuality than you Christcucks.

why were ancient niggas so much more intense than "people" nowadays?

Attached: 1559097443564.png (1792x3528, 2.03M)

You probably want to stick your dick in a guys ass. Kill yourself faggot

LIBTARD STATUS: TROLLED

EPIC

lack of gun control and video game restrictions

Why is there so much proof and sites existing relating to ancient greeks yet barely anything but a book confirming the existence of Jesus?

Because he's not a real historical person.

is it fair to have doubts he even existed then?

It's fair to just flat out say he was made the fuck up. There is literally no record of him until after 70 AD.

youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo

>but a book
you mean multiple books written by various authors at different times (because thats what the NT is), and plus suetonius, pliny and josephus, and all of the 2nd century christians like clement, polycarp and justin martyr?

thats not a long time at all, especially considering those records are claimed to have been written by eye witnesses or those who interrogated eye witnesses
richard carrier is considered a fringe historian and his hypotheses haven't been subjected to peer review. a more reliable non-christian scholar would be bart ehrman who concedes ofc that jesus existed as do the majority of ancient historians

again just text written down.
is there anything else where he left a mark? We can still see remnants of old battles literally hundreds of years before him. A man as iconic as Jesus should have more proof, right?

>thats not a long time at all
It is for someone who's been dead for 40+ years and was supposedly famous in his lifetime and who literally only ONE PERSON ever recorded (Mark).

All wrong. All christians just repeated christian mythology, Saul never met Jesus and admits to only seeing in him in visions, Josephus is a rabid fraud, and all Roman authors are merely repeating what they heard from christians.

well the text, certain ones in particular, are pretty significant as far as proving Jesus existence. For example, Paul's testimonies and accounts such as this one
1 cor 15
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
he is basically telling the readers "the guys who saw jesus are still alive, go ask them if you dont believe me". theres also luke, who writes in an educated historian prose and refers interrogating those who witnesses the events as he wrote his documents
when was alexander the great first recorded after his death? btw, some scholars believes pauls letters are much sooner than that, like 1 corinthians being written only about 5-10 years after Jesus died
>All christians just repeated christian mythology
like what mythology? where would the mythology come from? why would anyone believe it or spread it? people were ostracized or killed for being christian

Nazareth literally didn't even exist when Jesus was supposedly alive. Most biblical scholars are literally christian apologists and aren't non-christians. At the absolute best they're "cultural christians" like how Richard Dawkins describes himself. Most of them, however, are just plain old christians.

>like what mythology? where would the mythology come from?
Watch the video. It's all explained. As Carrier says, you'd have to make the same excuse for Bacchus and others if you're going to claim this bullshit about jesus.

>people were ostracized or killed for being christian
Oh here we go with this horseshit again. Nobody has ever been insane enough to die for a cult. Just ask everyone at Waco. Oh wait, you can't. They must've been right then, right?

my discord is chard#0308 if any of you would like to discuss this more
>Nazareth literally didn't even exist when Jesus was supposedly alive.
what do you mean by that?
and the historian I mentioned isn't Christian, hes agnostic. he has more credibility to speak on this than dawkins. but regardless, to disregard an argument just because they're Christian would be omitting the genetic fallacy. Like if I were to disregard dawkins argument just because hes a biologist and not a historian or theologian
maybe later, but I already watched his debate with william lane craig awhile back. feel free to give me a refresher on what exactly you're referring to if you'd like me to respond
>Oh here we go with this horseshit again. Nobody has ever been insane enough to die for a cult.
but has anyone died for something that they claimed they saw? especially large groups claiming to have all seen the same thing? like the apostles or the 500 that paul references. there was literally no reason to believe whatsoever. and the belief spread incredibly rapidly.

what a SHIT gif

Prove Socrates existed.

I'm not saying Dawkins is a biblical scholar. I was referencing how he describes himself religiously. Most bibilical scholars are just simply wrong because they're blinded by their personal cultural connections to christianity.

>william lane craig
Is an absolute fraud and a moron.

There are people who think both he and Alexander didn't. Why should jesus be any different?

>omitting the genetic fallacy
committing*
feel free to cite examples. you've given me nothing to argue against other than personal attacks

because those historians are considered fringe
you're only changing the standard of historical evidence for Jesus because his existence would cause problems for your worldview

I've given you plenty and it's all summarized by Carrier. I don't care that you don't like him. That's your problem. Your brain is so infested with worms you believe William Lane Craig is anything but a joke. You simply can't be taken seriously after an opinion like that.

The standard has always been the same. You stupid kikes simply refuse to accept the facts on the ground. There are exactly 2 accounts of Jesus that were written anywhere close to his supposedly life and they are first Saul of Tarsus' who admits he never met the man and only saw him in visions, and Mark's who only wrote 40+ years after the fact. Somehow this guy was so amazing literally only two people ever wrote about him, one who never even met the man - and keep in mind, the guy who never met the man wrote about him FIRST. The bible simply claims it's the other way around, but Saul's writings predate Mark's. And all the other gospels are based on Mark's.

All those Roman authors you talk about as being "proof" of jesus literally just repeated what they heard christians saying and some of them weren't even fucking alive when jesus supposedly was.

The entire story is based on basically non-existent evidence, but you're religion is wrapped up in it so you don't give a shit.

Satan buried dinosaur bones though.

This is why it is literally impossible to take christians seriously.

sorry you feel that way user

> .....is just a state of mind!

well lets start here then
why would any of those authors lie
Luke and Paul for example, since they have the most historicity behind them

Its the other way around. Usually the mentor -> disciple relationship was of platonic love (so a love without sex) and the society was firmly based on heterosexual families.

>why would any of those authors lie
Authors lie all the time.

Next.

why would they in particular lie
you dont get to make up reasons to disregard a historical source as dishonest. I could find any historical source on any topic and say "authors lie all the time so these ones did too". thats what you're doing right now

>why would they in particular lie
Because humans are dishonest.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ
dawkins changes his mind on Jesus existence on a whim when hes pushed by John Lennox
so we should assume every historical author was dishonest?

practically most of history is disputed. Why must one story be infallible?

And let's put a stop to this fucking bullshit right now, because I know how you retarded jesus apologists act and you're just going to keep repeating this same talking point.

If you genuinely believe what you're arguing, then you have to ask why any other historian in human history would lie about what they wrote and claim that every historian in human history wrote the truth.

Now obviously you'd have to be retarded to think that. Fin.

I don't care about Dawkins. Dawkins is a retard. I've already explained why he was even brought up and it wasn't for any kind of biblical scholarship on his part.

>so we should assume every historical author was dishonest?
Yes, you fucking retard. That's how you find out if they WERE telling the truth. Doubt is the DEFAULT position. Holy shit your brain is like a little baby's.

most of history has whats called a "consensus" and anything outside of that is considered fringe.
>Why must one story be infallible?
what do u mean
>If you genuinely believe what you're arguing, then you have to ask why any other historian in human history would lie about what they wrote and claim that every historian in human history wrote the truth.
no user, you look at it on a case by case basis. for example, when tacitus wrote about nero you take it with a grain of salt because tacitus had reason to lie about nero... considering personal shit i guess, idk I probably got those names fucked up but u see what I mena I hope
>Doubt is the DEFAULT position
thats not true at all.

QuEsTioN eVeRyThInG bRo~~

I don't believe George Washington existed. We must pick doubt as the default position, and I have decided that all sources regarding his life are liars (because if I don't that means I must assume none of them are).

>thats not true at all.
Not for christians. And that's the core of your problem.

Yes, because when you don't you become a creationist.

The next step is to examine the evidence.

Didn't really think this one out, did you, simpleton? Doubt is step one. Not the entire process.

not for any historian user. no historian would ever have that default position. it would be nearly impossible to do ancient history with that standard
let me ask then... how do you prove that a source is telling the truth? you read the source, you doubt its authenticity, what makes you believe it?

Correct. All historians simply believe whatever they read and never question. This is the correct way to do archaeology.

Btw, what you're describing is exactly what historians USED to do, which is why for so many centuries Exodus was believed as historical fact...until we found the better Egyptian records that soundly refuted it.

>christcuck goes into cope mode
>reveals he is American
Lol every time

answer my question please
I never said to never question it, please dont misrepresent me if we're going to have this discussion fren

Reminds me of the Foundation series where "science" in the stagnating galactic empire was just "read what people wrote, no need to check it yourself"

Most countries don't have to put up with this bullshit. If you are from another country, count your blessings daily. The average American is dumber than any randomly selected wild animal.

Your question was answered perfectly here:

Yeah it's Ra's Urn Spunk not a garden that started it all, totally more accurate

>Egyptian records
because an empire is going to write about that time they got btfo by their slaves right? I'm not even the guy you're talking to but come on son

Hold on lemme just go ask Plutarch

... You really have no idea how research is done, do you

huh? so you just disregard a source in the hopes that a better source comes along to disprove it? I don't understand you user, call me a brainlet if you want

Just like Warhammer 40k too. Don't investigate. Just believe. Research is bad. Losing the universe to space bugs is actually the pious thing to do.

Exodus, moron, not Genesis.

I'm not just talking about writings. Also physical evidence. Exodus is hebrew war propaganda. The truth is almost the exact opposite in every way.

Well?
What did he say?

That's why you use more than one piece of evidence, retard. Eyewitness testimony is the shittiest evidence.

I have no idea what point you're even trying to make. Research is done by doing a literature review, reproducing the results of research papers that are relevant to you, and then expanding on it by doing experiments yourself

>Eyewitness testimony is bad cuz I watched a 20/20 special which I believe without investigating so I don't have to believe this other thing
Curious what you think is true

Why are jews so angry about jesus still they pretend he didn’t exist?

fun fact: the jewish argument against Jesus at the time wasn't even that he didn't exist
it was that the apostles stole his body.

Yeah lemme just do an experiment on *squints* the life of Jesus

You have no idea what you're talking about do you, you're just saying the dumbest shit

sneed

This is probably the fist time I've ever said this, but I'm kind of glad all the rightwingers turned into neonazis, because I don't have to hear them endlessly butchering history and making excuses for jesus bullshit nearly as much as I did a decade ago. Now they just obsess over stupid shit nobody cares about like "are cats feminine" and nofap.

I think it is true that you are a moron.

Christianity is a sect of judaism. You're a jew.

You should investigate it first, Mr My-Bias-Is-Right-Damn-The-Evidence-They're-All-Lying-But-Me

>I'm kind of glad all the rightwingers turned into neonazis
I was with her too bro

Attached: d90.png (644x800, 15K)

Hillary Clinton is a nazi too.

yes user, all of the politicians that you dont like are nazis

Attached: 1562308433826.jpg (800x555, 115K)

my discord is still here if anyone would like friendly discussion on this. I also have a comfy very non-Christian server that you can hang out in as well.

Attached: 34ook1qg07z21.jpg (618x741, 75K)

and bernie sanders

Fascists are actually fascists, whether you like them or not is irrelevant.

Well he is running for president of the United States.

Oh no a fascist!

A sick beat starts

Yeah, they're probably going to destroy the world. Don't worry, it will all be over soon.

Just like the other fascists did, getting the trains running on time, draining ancient swamps, removing social parasites and looking after their people until jealous liberals declared war and put a stop to all that

>draining swamps is good
Like I said, you'll probably destroy the world. Good riddance.

If I had to guess, I'd say you aren't posting from a swamp. It's always easier to criticize others from dry land, isn't it?

Xerxes wanted to abolish slavery and taxation, seemed like a good guy.

>Athens wins the first war against Persia while the Spartans do nothing
>Athens wins the second war against Persia while the Spartans get themselves killed
>Sparta later allies with Persia against Athens
>Somehow the Spartans are remembered as the defenders Greece

I created a Twitter account for the first time a few days ago, and holy hell I didn't realise how many deranged people like you there are out there.

How can you in any stretch of the imagination think "modern nazis" are even a thing. Do you orange man bad deranged lefties even know what a nazi is?

I mean Hitler actually propogated way more shit from the left than he ever did the right. He was a socialist too, so...? Also, there were non-white soldiers in the German army during WW2, so you also can't say he wanted an ethno state.

>inb4 told I'm a nazi for stating facts

Guess every scientist and historian are nazis as well because of all those facts.

Attached: 1566497252137.jpg (528x377, 36K)

you're dumb, sorry, but you are

SHOOP DA WHOOP!

no one believes nazis actually exist anymore
nazis cannot exist anymore unless someone re-founds the NSDAP because that's what nazi means
people are just too lazy to say neo nazis

Weren't there actual Roman documents stating that there was a guy who was going around claiming he's God or some shit when Pilate was in power and that he got crossed?

only Roman stuff is about some shit head jew being an idiot called 'Chrestus' but that was a very common name among slaves

It seems I'm not the only one that remembers the techno remix

THIS
IS
SNEED!!!

Why was the messenger so damn Black?

I thought Greeks were White?

>Madness...?
>I hardly knew her!
>*cue laugh track*

I miss the films made in the last decade

*sips*
yep, that was a video
youtube.com/watch?v=rvYZRskNV3w

Why does his double do the kick in the wide shot? Gerard skip leg day?

>I miss the films made in the last decade
>2007
>2019
>Counts on fingers

>Not realizing they meant the 00's as compared to the 10's, instead of within the past 10 years

Based zero comprehension autist

DID I EVER TELL YOU THE DEFINITION OF MADNESS?

Should've read the fine print.

>yes it is madness...
>the world's getting a lot crazier

Attached: 1556918063111.gif (400x300, 1.93M)

They lost the peloponesian war tho

JIDF

This... is... a society!