How do we know that King David WASN'T the Messiah? He lines up with many elements of the prophecy perfectly. Is it really just as simple as David never said he was the savior but Jesus did?

There is no Messiah, no one is going to come save you jewish faggots (and by jewish faggots I mean kikes AND christcucks)

>>17761384
How do you know?

>>17761384
Boy are you going to be embarrassed when/if you grow up.

>>17761389
Because G-d is objectively not real and all "prophecies" are fictions made by men.

>>17761393
Monotheism is for mental children.

>>17761378 (OP)
David never existed. It's fiction.

>>17761398
But how do you know? Explain in the same scientific way one would explain the Big Bang or evolution how you know God isn't real.

Victors write the history.
Christians were the victors.
Therfore Jesus, their savior, is the messiah.

>>17761399
Much like Jesus, we have some evidence that he existed. Whether his story is true is a different matter, but there was indeed a House of David. That much historians can agree on.

>>17761398
What's your alternative? Zoroastrian dualism? Polytheism? Materialism?

Monotheism makes sense to me. The fact that you type "God" like a Jew makes you suspect.

>>17761400
Because the claims of the old testament are false and the basis for belief in the monotheistic God of the jews is based on the old testament.

Starting with story one: the garden of Eden. All of man and the animal kingdom did not descend from a single pair mating and then having their children commit incest with each other. That is fucking retarded.

>>17761403
Why were jews so weak? You'd think after every lesson being "we lost, the L--d is trying to tell us something" that it would finally click.

>>17761405
You're in for a rude fucking awakening guy.

Tel Dan is a widely known forgery. It was outed nearly two centuries ago lmao

>>17761407
"The events in Old Testament is impossible" might disprove Yahweh, but that doesn't disprove a creator in general. How do we know? Something had to exist always and forever and it's either neurons floating in space or a creator. Either way, both challenge our understanding of the world: How can they always have been there?

>>17761407
>Augustine in the 4th Century overcame his doubts about the Hebrew Bible by allowing for allegorical and spiritual reading not necessarily literal/historical
Here you are 17 centuries later demanding we take it 100% literally

>>17761418
>most scholars reject this spurious argument
You really showed them

>>17761411
>>17761418
The Shroud of Turin was a "known forgery" until they continued to do testing and realized their previous debunking was wrong. When you have purely secular scientists examining things, they will be quick to dismiss any possibility of a religious relic even if many, many, many others disagree.

>>17761425
Did you see the citations? That's the best part lmao

>>17761406
All three things you listed are superior to being mindbroken by neurotic desert Jews and their retarded god.

>>17761420
>Something has to exist

It certainly ain't Yahweh

>>17761421
>CHILL BRO IT WAS A METAPHOR, AN ALLEGORY, JUST A PRANK THE CAMERA'S OVER THERE

lmao cope

>>17761427
I don't know anything about the Shroud of Turin, but supposing it was real, it doesn't mean other artifacts are.

>>17761433
>It certainly ain't Yahweh
But how do you know? You believe that something always existed, which is already impossible based on our understanding of matter and physics. And yet, it must be true. Either neurons were just always around, which makes no sense that something exists with no point of creation, or neurons were suddenly virgin birthed into existence, which also makes no sense.

So these two possibilities do not make sense, yet you believe that it must be true and a creator must be false. Why? Your understanding of reality is already being challenged, how can you know for certain it isn't being challenged again and again?

>>17761378 (OP)
David is still alive and will come back from suspended animation to be the Messiah and I, being the Antichrist, will have to fight him to the death

>>17761440
>But how do you know
What evidence are you looking for?

>>17761433
>nooooo you have to utilize an amazing atheist banana butt literal reading because I say so
No

>>17761441
I pledge my soul to fight the Jewish messiah in the final days in an unbinding pact.

>>17761456
Unfathomably based

But you won't have to because Jesus was a Roman

>>17761456
>accepts Abrahamic cosmology
>chooses to fight for the losing side anyway

>>17761464
I just want to turn as many sheep away from the messiah as possible and bring them to hell with me.

>>17761445
We know how early elements formed. We understand amino acids. We understand building blocks, neurons, protons, electrons.

We don't know anything about the energy of the universe before all of that. We don't understand how it was just there. We only have hypotheticals that cannot be tested. You can't prove zero energy and I can't prove God. But something was always there and always was. At worst, the answer I can get behind is, "I don't know", but if you say for certain, "I know there's nothing there", then you must have something to back it up. Nobody knows what was at the start. Based on our understanding of matter and physics, we can give best guesses as to what was NOT there. Hydrogen was not a constant. Neither was helium, lithium; those were all made later.

So what the hell was that energy? Was that an intelligent creator? Was that the start of the simulation? What the hell is it? If you know it wasn't a creator, then you must have some reason other than it's just "ridiculous"; because the whole idea of the universe being birthed from nothing is already ridiculous.

>>17761496
I know for certain that the history claimed by the Bible/Torah is largely fiction.

>>17761505
Okay, but what if the universe is God? What if pantheism is right? Maybe the energy is God and he's able to speak to us through this energy and has been influencing and guiding us in many different ways. Maybe every religion all have one piece of the puzzle because he's been talking to all of us and we all come up with different interpretations like art.

>>17761517
The problem with pantheism is that the pantheistic god is an animalistic force that it just is. You can't expect anything good, nor bad, from it. You're basically worshipping nature at that point.

>>17761702
Praying to yahweh does literally nothing

>>17761702
Only if you believe that a universe god is not influencing us in any way. Energetic influence might as well be spiritual influence, and if that's happening, then that means there must be some kind of objective moral truth. I mean, we know that the phases of the moon can slightly influence behavior, why can't other forces in the cosmos that we can't see with our eyes also be doing it?

>>17761724
>Only if you believe that a universe god is not influencing us in any way
You're giving personal traits to a force that cares little about whats good or bad for you, that's the problem here. Why do you think Spinoza got excommunicated in the first place?

>>17761776
There's so much more evidence that this energy, force, whatever cares for you than doesn't care for you. I don't buy that every human on Earth just came up with religion because that's how our brains work. There's no reason why our brains would evolve to that level of thought unless something was influencing us. We could've reached chimpanzee stage and peaked there while still surviving.

>>17761788
>There's no reason why our brains would evolve to that level of thought unless something was influencing us
Theres a reason, that being that it allows humans to become more proficient at surviving. Religion is just a side effect created to make the burden of the eventual hard questions lighter.

There's nothing divine, or great, in pantheism, and you're better off being an atheist. No difference at the end, anyway.

>>17761842
This is your mind on dialectical materialism.

>>17761842
Religion, creativity, and philosophy are all side effects to being proficient as surviving...? There are a fuck ton of species on this planet a thousand times more resilient than us that don't have an ounce of that. The roach is going to outlive us all.

>>17761921
>Religion, creativity, and philosophy are all side effects to being proficient as surviving...?
Yes
>The roach is going to outlive us all.
But humans dominate the roach right nos until their inevitable fall. Humans are at the summit thanks to our sapience

>>17761943
None of that makes sense. The roach is not our predator or our prey and never has been. The roach infests the world as much as humans and will continue to live beyond humans. We had no reason to go past the great ape stage and no other animal has done it either even though things like the orca whale certainly could've been kings of the sea if they had human intelligence. Our ancestors, the homo erectus, were doing things like making fire AFTER our brains had already developed enough to do so. This was not a gradual evolution of brain complexity being formed, this was a sudden surge in brain activity in under 1 million years that made us go from swinging monkeys to going to the moon. And there's no evidence our survival depended on this advanced brain.

I wish the stoned ape theory was true because it's the closest to some kind of connection I've ever been able to find.

>>17761378 (OP)
on king davih

>>17761977
>things like the orca whale certainly could've been kings of the sea if they had human intelligence.
They already are? Their human-like cooperation makes them the apex predator of the sea
>This was not a gradual evolution of brain complexity being formed, this was a sudden surge in brain activity in under 1 million years that made us go from swinging monkeys to going to the moon
Meh, I don't know what to tell you at this point. You maintain those magical thoughts as long as you want to, I prefer a more grounded vision of things

>>17762019
>They already are? Their human-like cooperation makes them the apex predator of the sea
Yes, and they didn't have to evolve to be capable of philosophy, religion, or creativity to do it. So why is our species line the only ones who ever evolved to that? There is nothing else on this planet that has such a wildly unique evolutionary branch as us. Even the platypus has egg-laying mammal cousins.

>I prefer a more grounded vision of things
Your grounded vision is that we evolved to be capable of space travel so we could survive harsh weather and find food better. That's such a wild jump in ability for something so basic. And it still does NOT line up. We did not gradually evolve with more and more intelligence as our environment changed and we had new obstacles. We were capable of similar intelligence to other great apes and THEN had a giant leap in brain activity that made it possible to do things like build fires, create advanced tools, engage in farming and butchery, and so on. It wasn't as if did these actions very slowly and it caused our brains to get bigger. It all came at the same time. And what's more curious is that our Neanderthal cousins had bigger brains than us, bigger bodies than us, had many of the same capabilities but were wiped out? So much for evolutionary benefits.

>>17762058
>they didn't have to evolve to be capable of philosophy, religion, or creativity to do it.
How do you know they don't have philosophy, religion, or creativity? They talk a lot. Also they are very creative when it comes to getting seals hiding on floating ice.

>>17762161
We've studied orca whales enough to not see any pattern relating to philosophy, creativity, or religion. Many animals engage in culture, but it seems to stem from larger brains wanting some kind of stimulation and that's it. It is not needed for survival and evolution has no reason to prioritize that for future generations.

In our case, it makes even less sense why evolution would do so because it actually got harder for our females to survive child birth which is NOT ideal for a mammalian species. Mammals need a mother figure, especially with human babies who are the most helpless of any infant species out there, so it makes no sense why childbirth would be a coinflip of death for the female. Unless our evolutionary line was manipulated in such a way that forced us to evolve faster than we should have.

>>17761788
NTA but consciousness feels more like a curse than anything else. If that 'energy' exists, then it didn't make us any favour.

>>17761724
The universe influences some to become 'evil' person, and in the same way, it influences others to become 'good'. If there was an objective moral truth, you would think whatever influences us would lead all of us to that. So your argument dies like that.
>But free will...
Doesn't exist in your view

>>17762742
If there is no objective moral truth, then raping babies is just as valid of an action as helping the homeless.

>>17761378 (OP)
I dont understand. The prophecy came before David's death not after. How would he be the Messiah if he died before the prophecy was made?

>>17762743
Exactly

>>17762777
Oh, you just want there to be no god so you can have an excuse to a horrible human being, got it.

>>17762796
No

>>17761378 (OP)
No, the messiah is supposed to permanently restore his people

>>17761427
>The Shroud of Turin was a "known forgery" until they continued to do testing and realized their previous debunking was wrong
This never happened