>Jesus absolutely existed. It's 100% certain he was a real person. Why?>Because there's a consensus.Why is there a consensus? >Because there's a story about a magic jew that flies around on a magic cloud which we assume is based on a real person.Why do you assume it's based on a real person?>Because there's a consensus.
Why would the Jesus cult invent stories of its founder being baptized by another man and dying on a cross?
>>17423014Why not?
>>17423014>being baptized by another man and dying on a crossNeither of those are interpreted negatively by the cult itself for one. How would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?
>>17423064Because the cult had to account for that. The foundation of Christianity is retconning a failed apocalyptic prophet into a self-sacrificial savior.
>>17423078account for what? he's a fictional blending of the josephic and davidic messiahs into one. It's just judaism 2.0 for the goys. Pretty simple stuff
>>17423119So simple... retarded, even
>>17423130>kvetchingI accept your concession dummy
>>17423064I did eat breakfast this morning
>>17423140>shit on the floor>declare victory
>>17423151You realize just saying "dats stoopid" isn't an argument right? lmao
>>17423163You have to be 18 to post here.
>>17423179>>17423140>>17423146/thread
>>17423064It is ABSOLUTELY NEGATIVEThere was never a single depiction of Christ on the cross until 1000 AD because the cross is just that shameful.
>>17423001What is this pic saying?This fictional character was born albino in Africa and therefore all cases of albinism in Africa is fictional
>>17423014They were really into humiliation, if that's not apparent
>>17423001Just out of curiosity, what evidence is there that Muhammad existed? I know he was from the early middle ages, so it's probably easy to find records, but what is the evidence exactly?
>>17423001it took me 5 minutes to crossreference your claims in the picture and:most are false or far fetched
>>17423119>account for what? he's a fictional blending of the josephic and davidic messiahs into one. It's just judaism 2.0 for the goys. Pretty simple stuffAccount for being baptized by another man and dying on the cross, as was already statedWhy would you intentionally make up a story that you had to immediately try to spin another way instead of just makign up a better story
Imagine being Jesus and being able to communicate with God, knowing with 100% certainty that God exists and then trying to provoke people into killing him only for them to have to suffer later. What a boss. The people that killed him are probably still suffering on Earth to this day.
>>17423001Krishna wasnt born from anything virgin dumb christcuck
>>17423014The correct answer by an honest Jesus mythists would be "We don't know". anything else without concrete evidence is just head canon tier.
>>17424537No. The court does not run on possibilities but on probabilities.We may not have camera footage of the scene but if all surrounding pieces of evidence point to one conclusion, then judgment is to be made accordingly
>>17424551Unless there is reasonable doubt
>>17424574Keyword is "Reasonable"There's no reason to doubt that those people were completely convinced that their religious leader rose from the deadThe only question you can throw is whether what they have seen is true or not. Nevertheless, they are 100% willing to die for their testimony
>>17424037>provokeNah, he told them the truth and they would rather kill him than accept it
>>17423001>all this made-up nonsense and yet no mention of sol invictusChrist mythicists are so obsessed with accusing Christianity of plagiarising old religions, that they can't figure out which god Christians really stole the December 25th date from
>>17423001Horus, Dionysus, Attis, Mithra, and Krishna are real
>>17423014Why would the Spiderman cult invest stories of Spiderman?
https://desuarchive.org/his/search/text/%22magic%20jew%22/https://desuarchive.org/his/search/text/%22magic%20jew%22/https://desuarchive.org/his/search/text/%22magic%20jew%22/https://desuarchive.org/his/search/text/%22magic%20jew%22/Ahem.
>>17425127If you wanted to start a cult, you want to present it as completely gloriousYou don't say that your founder was turned into a billboard and all head executives were beaten to a pulp and anyone who joins will suffer the same fate.There's no reason to say such shameful things, unless it was true
>>17423014Why do you believe that this has to have happened with every other religion on the planet, but Christianity is a special exception?>>17423417There's a variety of period texts (charters, a few inscriptions) that attest to there being a bandit-king named "Muhammad" running around Arabia in the 600s. We can presume that this is the figure that the Quran, Hadith, and political propaganda of the early caliphate are referring to. That doesn't mean that he was at all like what is described in the Quran, Hadith, and political propaganda of the early caliphate, however.>>17425258So you're saying that the claims of the dozen or so other Jewish cults making the same claims at the same time are true?
>>17425264>So you're saying that the claims of the dozen or so other Jewish cults making the same claims at the same time are true?What the fuck? Of course not. Just because they've come up with some kind of persecution narrative and stories of suffering doesn't mean that you're cult's whacky beliefs are true. You'd have to look at every single cult and what they believed and work with it from there. We can't even be sure that these groups were one singular group, or weren't mergings of prior ones combining earlier narratives that later members misunderstood. Hell, even the earliest texts are clearly just edits and redactions of prior texts for idealogical control.
>>17425269So why do you say this about every single other religion on the planet, but carve out a special exception for Christianity?
>>17425264There are no other Jewish cult making the same claim at the same time as Christianity
>>17425285Jesus quotes Rabbis 200 years his prior in the Gospels, anon.
>>17425291You mean the prophets
>>17425292No, I mean Rabbis. That's where he gets the whole "no marriage" and "you can't uphold Halakha, it's too complex" thing from. Like, when he condemns divorce he quotes Rabbi Shammai. Remember, the Prophets say that divorce is totally fine and dandy, provided it's done halakhically.
>>17425296Bah!Even the apostles quote Aristotle regularly. Who cares?The bigger picture is vastly different and Jesus's claim of divinity is a complete heresy to the Jewish society, unless it was true
>>17425264>Why do you believe that this has to have happened with every other religion on the planet, but Christianity is a special exception?There's no exceptionEvery other religion started by introducing a concept filled with all sorts of great promises by men appointed by gods or men who attained enlightenment. They pandered heavily to the royalty and had great control over the political systemBuddha himself returned back to his palace and introduced his teachings to the royal court with his sister being a top studentChristianity did the exact opposite. It catered exclusively towards the marginalized, the oppressed, the impoverished, and the rejected ones of society. The rich people only started becoming softer towards Christians when it became big enough that not pandering to it is politically unfavorable. And by big enough, I mean it is estimated that, by the time Christianity was legalized, half of Rome was secretly a Christian.
>>17423146Thank you for this reply desu
>>17425303>Even the apostles quote Aristotle regularly.No they don't.
>>17425311>The rich people only started becoming softer towards Christians when it became big enough that not pandering to it is politically unfavorable.No it didn't. That's not what happened at all. Have you seriously not spent five minutes looking into the history of this religion?
>>17425311>I mean it is estimated that, by the time Christianity was legalized, half of Rome was secretly a Christian.No one thinks this or believes this, sorry. The Church Fathers were complaining about Rome and Byzantium being majority Pagan into the 600s. Sorry!
>>17425336>>17425332That is exactly what happenedBefore it was legalized, Christians were just <10% of Rome. 40 years after it was legalized, it was over 40%, thus revealing how Rome is either secretly Christian from the start or already well-acquited with its teachings
Meh, honestly the claims of an abstract historical Jesus don't even matter because, that's obviously not the figure christians worship. It's the mythic one on the gospels.So this debate is pointless anyways.
>>17425311>gay>brown>pedophile>wrong about basic factsoh yeah its neochristian time lmfao
>>17425340>40 years after it was legalized, it was over 40%There's no data to support this figure and every source on the matter says otherwise.
>>17425330My badPaul qouted Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides
>>17425355. Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates.[26] Christianity then rapidly grew in the 4th century - Rodney Stark estimated that Christians accounted for 56.5% of the Roman population by 350.
>>17423014Because the religion was designed to be a humiliation ritual
>>17425258>There's no reason to say such shameful things, unless it was trueMaybe they said it to win over gullible retards like youI want to sell you a bridge, but it's kinda shabby and needs a new coat of painNo way I'dd tell you that, unless I was telling the truth?I actually think the reason is more complicated. Like what kind of people early Christianity was pandering to. (the weak and the poor)And it's not like I think it was made-up that way by design, I simply think it's (a part of) the reason it succeed and grew where other new Jewish religious movements died out.Not that deep, bro
Why would the Jesus cult invent stories of all the founder's disciples dying on crosses? That's SO humiliating! Because it was in vougeI don't know who I'm talking to here, right? But if we care about actual historical evidence, and not traditions made-up by the early church.There's really no good reason to believe the martyrdom stories.
>>17425762>Maybe they said it to win over gullible retards like youLet's remember here that the entire reason why Saul even went to Greece in the first place was to get money for the failing Jerusalem community.
>>17425762>I simply think it's (a part of) the reason it succeed and grew where other new Jewish religious movements died out.Other reason is Paul stepping in and being 200IQ pandering to gentiles
>>17425361>Hopkins 1998I accept your concession.
>>17425311>Buddha himself returned back to his palace and introduced his teachings to the royal court with his sister being a top studentWhy is no one calling this bullshit?
>>17425795The woodchipper food is implying that he lived in luxury or whatever, which is wrong, but like that line itself isn't incorrect, Siddhartha did go home and teach his family Buddhism. He didn't go back to living in luxury or whatever, which is where the pedo is wrong.
What I want to know is why Paul never talks about the Empty Tomb, and only mentions Mary like twiceSeems like the kind of things he would be interested in, go on a pilgrimage, or say 'hi' to God's mom
Horus (Egyptian Mythology): Born on Dec 25: No ancient Egyptian texts specify Horus’s birth date as December 25. Born of a virgin: Horus’s mother, Isis, conceived him through magical means after reconstructing Osiris’s body, but this is not analogous to virgin birth. Star in the east: There’s no evidence of this motif in Horus’s mythos. 12 disciples: Horus did not have a group of 12 disciples in Egyptian mythology. Walked on water, crucified, dead for 3 days, resurrected: None of these elements are found in ancient Egyptian accounts of Horus.Dionysus (Greek Mythology): Born on Dec 25: Greek mythology does not associate Dionysus's birth with December 25. Born of a virgin: Dionysus’s mother, Semele, was not a virgin. Zeus impregnated her. Water into wine: Dionysus is the god of wine, and stories describe his miraculous powers related to wine, but this is not analogous to Jesus turning water into wine in the New Testament. Resurrected: Some versions of Dionysus’s myth describe a death and rebirth cycle, though the specifics differ greatly from Christian resurrection theology.Attis (Phrygian Mythology): Born on Dec 25: No evidence supports December 25 as Attis’s birth date. Born of a virgin: Attis was conceived when Nana (a nymph) became pregnant by eating a fruit or almond from a sacred tree, but this is not exactly a virgin birth. Crucified, dead for 3 days, resurrected: Attis’s death and connection to resurrection involve a self-castration and subsequent rebirth in some versions, but not crucifixion or a three-day death.
>>17425846cont. Mithra (Persian Mythology): Born on Dec 25: Mithra’s birth date is sometimes linked to December 25 in Roman Mithraism, but this is not confirmed for earlier Persian traditions. Born of a virgin: Mithra is described as being born from a rock, not a virgin. Star in the east, 12 disciples, dead for 3 days, resurrected: These motifs are not found in Zoroastrian or earlier Persian texts about Mithra.Krishna (Hindu Mythology): Born of a virgin: Krishna’s mother, Devaki, was not a virgin; she had seven children before him. Star in the east: There is no evidence of a star in Krishna
>>17425850>>17425846FAAART
>>17425858respect the mechanical sage, fool
>>17425762>No way I'd tell you that, unless I was telling the truth?Yes?Why would you say that if you weren't telling the truth?Rome is AAALLL about appearances.There is zero reason to start a cult that tells you blatantly that it is going get you killed, just like everyone who associated with it
>>17425917>There is zero reason to start a cult that tells you blatantly that it is going get you killedBut that's not what was said. What was said was that the Jewish Messiah was coming back in the next decade or so and that you had to do a bunch of stuff to get on the winning team, and then he was going to make you live forever and you'd spend eternity living in luxury. All of the martyrdom stuff wasn't invented until the Middle Ages.
>>17425828Because all of his writings were letters to specific people and communities addressing their issues, not to inform them on the life of Jesus, which they would already know.
>>17425973Which got them killed and will get you killed too.if it is a lie, they would retract it the moment it got inconvenientNot to mention, if you want to have a conspiracy, you need as few conspirators as possible so that the truth will not sprang upWe got a thousand testifying about what they have seen with a single, consistent, story. Even the Talmud confirms that God stopped accepting sacrifices after 30ADAnd Nazareen Decree declared that any corpse stealer will not be executedSomething BIG happened in Judea in 30AD and it involves a missing corpse
>>17426007>will not be executed*will now be executed. Corpse stealing was once punished solely with a small fine.But after 30 AD, it became a capital offense
>>17425981Paul DOES talk about the death and burial of Jesus. He just doesn't ever get specific enough to mention an Empty Tomb or not. Anyway, this is just an argument from silence, you don't have to take it as very strong evidence (for the Empty Tomb being made-up).Do we even have anything written by Paul that didn't make it into the Bible?Shame if he every talked about those kind of things, it wasn't preserved. Right, there's also the complete lack of (evidence for, still an argument form silence, you can relax) a tradition for pilgrimage to the Tomb among all early Christians. Not just Paul.That of course is suspicious to me as that really is something I'dd expect them to be interested in.Even if apoligizers will just tell you a story about the sack of Jerusalem to explain it away.
>>17426007>We got a thousand testifyingWe got Paul telling a story about 500 witnesses.You understand how this is different that actually having the witnesses testifying what they'd seen?
>>17426007>Which got them killedWe have no evidence of this.>and will get you killed too.No it wouldn't.>We got a thousand testifying about what they have seen with a single, consistent, storyNo we don't. >Even the Talmud confirms that God stopped accepting sacrifices after 30ADI don't care what the Talmud says, and the fact that you do is telling.>And Nazareen Decree declared that any corpse stealer will not be executedDo you mean the Nazareth Inscription that says that as per traditional Roman Law going back to the 500sBC, graverobbing was illegal and punishable by death? You know, the law that Christians got put to death for breaking all the time because they kept attacking Pagan gravesites? Because that was put up by Augustus after Nicias of Kos's tomb got desecrated sometime between 20BC and 14AD.>Something BIG happened in Judea in 30ADThere is no evidence to suggest this.
>>17426021Ha. Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and he started his ministry right at the epicenter of Judea.If anyone had doubts, just go visit the tomb. It's literally just a walk away>>17426027Graverobbing is capital crimeCorpse stealing is not. It is often done by the poor people who can't afford a tomb so they just steal the corpse of someone else' and place their loved one thereUsually, it's punished only with a small fine but it became a capital crime after 30AD
>>17426059Evidence of "Which got them killed", please
>>17426068Same evidence as every historical figure - oral tradition
>>17426059>Ha. Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and he started his ministry right at the epicenter of Judea.>If anyone had doubts, just go visit the tomb. It's literally just a walk awayThe fuck are you talking aboutWhat does this have to do with us not actually having eyewitness to the risen Jesus? (no one in the Bible is an eye witness)What exactly would a tomb prove? Besides, Paul is talking to people in Greece and Rome, it's NOT just a walk away.You are very confused.
>>17426074Acting like there's historic evidence for the disciples being martyred is just dishonest, even apologizers don't do this anymore
>>17423001>Why is there a consensus?>Because there's a story about a magic jew that flies around on a magic cloud which we assume is based on a real person.Yeah sounds pretty silly, except those are not the earliest mentions of Jesus, Paul predates them, mentioning other humans he personally knew who were involved with Jesus. We also have a mention of one of these people by a Jewish historian. We also know there were Christian communities outside those founded by Paul and that even rejected him. It would be very odd if all these people were real but Jesus was not, or if B, the mythologists position, scholars both religious and nonreligious are interpreting Paul incorrectly in these matters, and all other early mentions of Jesus or people related to him are complete interpolations. So we are left with the most likely scenario, that the stories of Jesus was based on a real figure, who followers founded a cult based around him after his death. >>17424587>There's no reason to doubt that those people were completely convinced that their religious leader rose from the deadThere is a lot of reason to doubt this. The biggest one is we do not have a single piece of first hand testimony from them about what they believed, nor is there good evidence that the apostles were actually martyred. Most of them just kind of disappear from the records after Acts,and the accounts of their deaths come from much later.
>>17426077What? Paul started in Judea, alongside the very people who saw it personallyAnd here is the funny part:If they wanted to kill Christianity from the get go, they could have just dragged a corpse into the town center. It could have been any rotten corpse and Christianity would die on the spotBut they didn't. They couldn'tThey know it's the Messiah and they don't want him>>17426088>>17426097We base it on the exact same method used for every historical figure.If you want to say that it is insufficient, you will have to throw away every historical figure too. This includes Genghis Khan, almost all Chinese emperors, and pretty much every single king before the onset of the printing press
>>17426099>We base it on the exact same method used for every historical figure.Yes we do, which is why so many critical historians believe Jesus was a real person but raise issues about the supposed martyrdom of the apostles. These are two very different issues.If you are going to use the historical Jesus to defend Chirstianity, you then have to explain why so many scholars who accept the historial Jesus raise all sorts of other problems with the claims of early Chirstians. The skeptical scholars only agree with you maybe about 1 or 10%.>If they wanted to kill Christianity from the get go, they could have just dragged a corpse into the town center. It could have been any rotten corpse and Christianity would die on the spotThis of course lies on the assumption that the earliest Christians had the same physical resurrection narrative as later Chirsitans, and this is not a universally accepted position among critical scholars either.
>>17426059>Graverobbing is capital crime. Corpse stealing is not.Theft of a corpse would fall under graverobbing by the Roman definition, and the law predates the supposed death of Jesus.>If they wanted to kill Christianity from the get goWho is "they"?
>>17426088>Acting like there's historic evidence for the disciples being martyred is just dishonest, even apologizers don't do this anymoreJosephus says James was martyred. Stay mad, retard.
>>17426114>Yes we do, which is why so many critical historians believe Jesus was a real person but raise issues about the supposed martyrdom of the apostles. These are two very different issues.>If you are going to use the historical Jesus to defend Chirstianity, you then have to explain why so many scholars who accept the historial Jesus raise all sorts of other problems with the claims of early Chirstians. The skeptical scholars only agree with you maybe about 1 or 10%.There's plenty of evidence of Christian purges in AD Rome. You are really coping here.
>>17426118What was his theology? Why did he believe? What did he believe about Jesus and how did he run his following? The answer to all this is we do not know. Also its not at all clear what the circumstances of his death were, except that he was considered a trouble maker by the temple and they took the opportunity of a Roman power vacuum to off him.
>>17426124>What was his theology? Why did he believe? What did he believe about Jesus and how did he run his following? The answer to all this is we do not know.>Also its not at all clear what the circumstances of his death were, except that he was considered a trouble maker by the temple and they took the opportunity of a Roman power vacuum to off him.Read the Epistle of James, galaxy brain. His theology is spelled out for you. Most scholars learn towards it being genuine. It's almost like you're new to this and just running your mouth.
>>17426122>There's plenty of evidence of Christian purges in AD RomeThat's not even the same thing. Nero persecuted Christians in Rome after a fire, that is not evidence that the apostles were hunted down and killed, or even that they ever left Judea.
>>17426114That's a lieWe already have the writings made by the apostolic fathers (100ADs) which all tell you exactly what the early Christians believed in. And guess what?It is exactly the same as oursWe are talking about a dozen books and hundreds of letters written just a few decades after the apostles died. And their writings tell you exactly how the first Churches were like, which are the same as ours>>17426116Nope. Graverobbing is solely for rich mausoleums. Corpse stealing is done on common graves that have nothing worth of value to steal.The Bible straight up tells you that the Pharisees spread the message that "the apostles stole the body of Christ", which did not get them killed because corpse stealing is not a capital offense
>>17426127>Read the Epistle of JamesWhich one? There's several. How am I supposed to know what this "James" thought about the Jewish Messiah? You yourself admit that there's multiple texts purported to be by James, and that all but one of them were false texts created by liars to swindle morons.
>>17426131>That's not even the same thing. Nero persecuted Christians in Rome after a fire, that is not evidence that the apostles were hunted down and killed, or even that they ever left Judea.Oral tradition is that Peter and Paul were martyered during this purge. It has its basis, plus again the martyerdoms mentioned in Josephus, which includes James and John the Baptist, not an apostle, but shows the Christian tradition wasn't made up.
>>17426132>Nope. Graverobbing is solely for rich mausoleums.Sorry, that's not what Roman Law or the actual inscription say. You're making things up now, so I'm just going to accept your concession.
>>17423417The evidence for mohammed is literally "trust me bro". There's even less evidence for muhammed than there is for Jesus.
>>17426118>JamesSorry, I am protestant. I don't think Jesus had a brother
>>17426127> Most scholars learn towards it being genuinehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_JamesA prevalent view within scholarship considers the Epistle of James to be pseudonymous.[24] No it isn't, at least among critical scholars.
>>17423001>>17423014>>17423018>>17423064>How do we know the Biblical Jesus is based on a real person?One of the first things Biblical scholars will refer to is how much>RetrofittingJesus gets in the Gospels to make him fit the Messianic prophecies.For example, Jesus is referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” in all 4 Gospels (and elsewhere in the New Testament). It’s pretty easy to assert that “historical Jesus” was from Nazareth. They all seem to agree on this, even though they were written by different authors decades apart.Oops, there’s a problem. The Old Testament establishes very clearly that the Messiah is from Bethlehem. Fuck, fuck, what do we do?Mark says, “I’ll just ignore it.” Bethlehem does not appear in Mark at all. It’s possibly Mark’s author wasn’t even aware of the issue with Nazareth, and it’s the earliest Gospel we have.Matthew and Luke come along, and they both have separate explanations for while “Jesus of Nazareth” is actually totally from Bethlehem.John addresses this issue by “retelling” an argument regarding where Jesus is “from.” It’s almost if the author of John had heard all the arguments about Jesus’s birthplace and was like>Actually, we totally settled this argument 60 years ago.Which is pretty common in fan fictions.If Jesus was an entirely fictional character, why have all the pilpul to make him fit the Messianic narrative? Why not just name him “Jesus of Bethlehem,” and end the argument right there? The amount of “square peg in round hole” treatment implies that Jesus was a real person, and his followers pilpuled him into fitting the Messianic prophecies.>But Joseph was totally a descendant of King David, which means Jesus is too.>No, Joseph is not Jesus’s dad, but, uh, it just counts, chudd.If Jesus was an invented character, he’s a really crappy one because he satisfies none of the Messianic prophecies if you exclude all the>Well, acktuallyIn the Gospels.
>>17426127Liar, liar, pants on fire
>>17426137>Which one? There's several.Are you on drugs? There's one epistle of James in the canonical bible. Are you so retarded you are referencing post-gnostic apocrypha now or are you that confused that you think there is multiple books by James in the Bible? You really have no idea what you are yammering on about.
>>17426099>If they wanted to kill Christianity from the get go, they could have just dragged a corpse into the town centerHow would Romans and people in Greece do that?Besides, Peter stole the corpse and hid it.
>>17426139>Oral tradition is that Peter and Paul were martyered during this purge. That is the tradition, and if I were to grant you any of the apostles it would probably be Peter, but that isn't granted without doubt and as for the rest of them there is much more doubt. In General the Christian tradition, as recorded by the Church fathers, is not considered completely or even very reliable by modern critical scholarship.
>>17425258Romulus committed patricide. Patricide was the worst offense in Roman culture. Therefore Romulus must have been real. Attis was castrated. Castration is humiliating. Therefore Attis must have been real.
>>17426144>Sorry, I am protestant. I don't think Jesus had a brotherProtestants literally think Jesus had a brother named James, which is in-line with the early church. You are confused and thinking of Catholic Marian retcon.
>>17426143>The evidence for mohammed is literally "trust me bro".There's several inscriptions and treaties, and attestations by sources outside of Arabia, of a bandit-king named Muhammad leading some kind of religious revolt in Arabia. So, no, we have more reason to believe in Muhammad as a historical person than we do Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef. That doesn't mean that the revelation stuff was true, but he could very well have been lying about that. You believe that to be the case after all.
>>17426152So, I have to just take this random text, ignore the other texts that are just as valid as it, and then pretend that it's written by some guy, of which there is no evidence for mind you, because... some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about pretends to be a crusader on the internet?Sounds like faulty reasoning. You should go back to the drawing board with this.
>>17426132>already have the writings made by the apostolic fathers (100ADs)And that you think the religion wouldn't have mutated rapidly between the 30AD's and an then is a testament to your faith. However that is not an assumption shared by more skeptical scholars. Cults can mutate very quickly.
>I am a Roman 60AD>This guy Paul tells me a story about a guy rising from the dead in Jerusalem>I tell him that sounds really made-up>He assures me it's true, and if I don't believe him there was all kinds of witnesses and stuff, and I only need to travel there to find out the truth>I travel 4,041 kilometers to Jerusalem, and start asking around for witnesses to Jesus' resurrection>I fail to find any such witnesses >I travel back to Rome and tell the people there are about my investigation>Nobody cares
>>17423001source on all of these??!
>>17426145Cherry picking, and prevalent doesn't mean concensus. Same wiki says this:>The historiographic debate currently seems to be leaning to the side of those in favor of early dating, although not through irrefutable evidence but through indications and probabilities.[36]
>>17426150>Liar, liar, pants on fireGreat retort, truly you're not another agenda driven nitwit.
>>17426162Who are the Christians that disagree with James being the literal brother of Jesus, then? Look, my point is supposed to be when the evidence for James is so weak, you got entire denominations who can easily deny him being the brother of Jesus, it isn't very strong evidence.
>>17426176>Look, my point is supposed to be when the evidence for James is so weak, you got entire denominations who can easily deny him being the brother of Jesus, it isn't very strong evidence.100 percent of scholars think the James reference in Josephus is genuine, so pound sand. The Bible itself refers to him as a brother of Christ.
>>17426174You literally just lied about what scholars believe, presumably because YOU have an agenda, dishonest retard
>>17426172That is on the question of dating, not authorship. Its a pretty common sentiment among more skeptical scholars that the only identified authorship in the New Testament is Paul, and then only for some of his books.
>>17426178Does Josephus also tell the 'recant and go free story' ?
>>17426180*Reliable identified authorship.
>>17426178>100 percent of scholars think the James reference in Josephus is genuineCan you demonstrate that the James that Josephus is referring to is the same James that wrote the Epistle of James, but not the same one that wrote the other texts by "James, the brother of Jesus"?
>>17426167>So, I have to just take this random textA book that has been the canon of the Bible forever is not a random text.>>17426167>ignore the other texts that are just as valid as itThere are no other texts by James as valid as it. You can't name them, because you are talking out of your ass.>>17426167>and then pretend that it's written by some guyit says who it was written by and lines up with all the other context cues in the Bible and the historical record about who James was>>17426167>ou, because... some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about pretends to be a crusader on the internet?>Sounds like faulty reasoning. You should go back to the drawing board with this.You are a fucking idiot who doesn't know what the books of the Bible are but are still trying to argue over it because you're from reddit probably. Kill yourself.
>>17426170Great fanfiction retard. Is this how you debate things, just make up stories where your debunked idiotic conspiracy theories that are laughed at by even atheist schollars are real?
I'm pretty sure the only NT author who says who they are (and isn't obviously lying) is Paul
This is such a stupid post. I wish /his/ had an IQ test to filter out unlearned troglodytes like OP. There are a variety of historical accounts pointing out that Jesus existed, including people that had negative opinions of Him.
>>17426188>Can you demonstrate that the James that Josephus is referring to is the same James that wrote the Epistle of James, but not the same one that wrote the other texts by "James, the brother of Jesus"?AGAIN, there are no other books by James that are in the Bible or taken seriously by anyone. You are 100 percent retarded.
>>17426189So, you're saying you can't actually demonstrate it. You're conceding that your initial position was wrong, due to your lack of understanding of the topic at hand.
>>17426201So, again, you can't actually demonstrate this, you're just making stuff up.
>>17426193You literally just told me people could travel to the tomb and check if there was a body in there to debunk ChristianityThe point of my greentext, was to show how this is very very childish thinking Did you learn anything?
>>17426180>That is on the question of dating, not authorship. Its a pretty common sentiment among more skeptical scholars that the only identified authorship in the New Testament is Paul, and then only for some of his books.Early dating means it's much less likely to be a pseudoanonymous forgery. Think harder. The fact that Paul actually backs up the fact that there is a rift between him and James lends credence to the fact that epistle is real since it's a response to Paul in some parts.
>>17426178>100 percent of scholars thinkThis is a lie
>>17426213>durr it's 98 percent actuallywow you guys aren't trying hard here, academic consenus sure makes you mad lol no one argues that the James reference was added later
>>17426197Did any of these people meet Jesus?
>>17426202>>17426207If you read it, it's obvious its by the James that was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, which was James, the brother of Christ. Origen confirms this is the case.
>>17426219Oh, was that what you meant by 'genuine'Why are you even bringing up interpolation?
>>17426220>Did any of these people meet Jesus?Paul met Peter and James, Jesus's brother, so that's enough evidence unless you are a total retard and are going to suggest Paul lied about that, which he obviously did not.
>>17426228Is that what most scholars believe?
>>17426238There's no dispute that James was the head of the church in Jerusalem.
>>17426236I'm interested in the people you were talking about in your post, those with a negative opinion on Jesus
>>17426228>If you read it, it's obvious its by the James that was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, which was James, the brother of Christ.So the guy who wrote all of the texts that you believe are heretical.
>>17426241Does scholars believe it's the same guy who wrote the Gospel of James'?
>>17426248>So the guy who wrote all of the texts that you believe are heretical.Can you even specifically explain what you mean by this in detail, because you again, 100 percent cannot.
>>17426250James the Just, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the early Christian community in Jerusalem: Leader of the Jerusalem Church: James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, along with Peter. One of the "Pillars of the Church": James, Peter, and John the Evangelist were known as the "Pillars of the Church". Author of the Epistle of James: James is generally thought to be the author of the Epistle of James, though the Epistle itself doesn't explicitly state this. Formulated the consensus at the Council of Jerusalem: James formulated the final consensus at the Council of Jerusalem, which was held around 48–50 AD. Died in Jerusalem in AD 62: James died in Jerusalem in AD 62. Other details about James include: He was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus' public ministry. Paul attributes James's conversion to the appearance of the resurrected Christ. He is mentioned in the Gospels as one of Jesus' four brothers. He is sometimes confused with St. James, son of Alphaeus.
>>17426253Does most scholars believe it's the same guy who wrote the Gospel of James'?
>>17426253>He is sometimes confused with St. James, son of Alphaeus.To be fair, even the Bible seems to get them mixed up
>>17426258>According to most scholars, the Epistle of James is traditionally attributed to James, the brother of Jesus (also known as James the Just), who is identified as the author in the opening verse of the epistle itself stating "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ".> We conclude, then, that James the brother of the Lord is the author of the letter. This is the natural implication of the letter’s own claims, it is corroborated by New Testament and early Christian evidence, and it has no decisive argument against it. [1] Moreover, the chief alternative theory—that the letter is pseudonymous—faces quite serious general objections having to do with the acceptability of pseudonymous letters in the ancient world. [2] See esp. Davids, The Epistle of James, 12–13; Ralph P. Martin, James, WBC (Waco: Word, 1988), lxix–lxxviii; Wiard Popkes, Adressaten, Situation, und Form des Jakobusbriefe, SBS 125/126 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), 184–88. 2. Among recent scholars, Luke T. Johnson, The Letter of James, AB37A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1995) concludes that the letter could well have been written by James of Jerusalem (see 121). See also T. C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-Reading an Ancient Christian Letter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 35–103; Hengel, “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik,” 252; Bauckham, James, 11–25.
Does most scholars believe it's the same guy who wrote the Gospel of James'?Yes/No
>>17426283see:>>17426283sorry, you're going blind, anon, being a reddit atheist bucking atheist schollarship is hard I know
>>17426212>Early dating means it's much less likely to be a pseudoanonymous forgery. Think hardeThat isnt thinking, that is grasping at possibilities.The window of the debate is a period of over a hundred years. The early dating makes it more likely James wrote it, only in that James would have been dead at later times. >>17426271According to most scholars, the Epistle of James is traditionally attributed to James, the brother of JesusThis means nearly nothing, as we have already talked about, skeptical scholars think almost all the traditional attributed authors in the New Testament are false. Now you can discard critical scholarship, really its the most logical thing to do if you are a conservative Christian, but then you are in the same position as the mythicists, almost completely outside mainstream secular historical circles.
>>17423014Why would Orphic Cults be based around a guy whose only notable feature was that he was sad and later got horribly killed? Is the more important part about Jesus that he died and came back to life? Is the more important part of Orpheus that he descended to and returned from the afterlife?
>>17426284Yes/No, please
>>17426288>skeptical scholars think almost all the traditional attributed authors in the New Testament are false.This is horse shit especially when applied to the New Testament. Even in cases of dispute, scholars still think things attributed to John came from his cult/church/camp in some form.
>>17426298see:>>17426271
>>17426301>This is horse shitIt is not. Outside Paul's Epistles, almost none of the authorship claims are taken as factual. Wherever you are getting your info, I doubt they are from the critical side of the scholarship. >scholars still think things attributed to John came from his cult/church/camp in some form.This is not the same thing, something produced by the Johannine community , which is not the same thing as a Church founded by saint John, btw, over several generations is not anything like a first hand account by St.John.
>>17426309>It is not. Outside Paul's Epistles,Which is 25 percent of the New Testament and contradicts your bloviating.>almost none of the authorship claims are taken as factual.As for the other authors, the only options with any support are the ones traditionally attributed unless you go with convoluted theories like "Q" which have no basis other than speculation. You're saying the word "factual" here, and you only have speculation and theories, not a historical record which would better align with church tradition and attributions>>17426309>the Johannine community , which is not the same thing as a Church founded by saint JohnOf course it's the same thing, you idiot. Also there's a concrete lineage of John's apostles. The fact he had his own lineage in the church was a fact.
>>17426305Dishonest retard
>>17426324Wrong, it is not the same thing.
>>17426332>the cult centerd around John and his teachings has no connection to Johngalaxy brained take you got there, but it's wrong, Polycarp, his disciple, was in that camp and helped promote his teachings, love though how we've moved past arguing whether or not John was a historical figure to whether or not he had contact with community named after him lol
>>17426342You kinda have to presuppose that there was an historical John, for a cult funded by John to be evidence of John
>>17426358By John I mean the guy who was Jesus' disciple
>>17426358epistles by John's disciples, and writings by the disciples of John's disciples are in the historical record, so you'd have to be a moron to suggest there wasn't a historical John the Apostle, really the idea any of this is in dispute is idiotic
I don't get it. Why isn't John written by John? It got his name on the cover, doesn't it?
>>17426365>a historical John the ApostleHow could mythicists possibly explain away the historical John the Apostle, if we bake into that he was the literal disciple of an historical Jesus?
>>17426369Probably they just wouldn't grant the >Apostle part, as there's no Jesus to be an apostle of
>>17426342>>17426324> Polycarp, his disciple, was in that camp and helped promote his teachings,First thing I think I have to clarify here, I know there is a traditonal narrative, contained in the Church fathers that validates what you are saying. I am telling you, that modern ciritical (that does not mean non-Christians exclusively, but those who use skeptical methods ,as used on other historical issues)hold this tradition in a great deal of doubt. Apologetic, and conservative Chirstian scholarship on the other hand tends to come to very different conclusions, and if you look at a "minimal facts" list of what the two sides agree on, it is very minimal indeed. As far as many academics are concerned however, the critical side is the only one that really matters for history. >Which is 25 percent of the New Testament and contradicts your bloviating.And only about seven of those letters are really undisputed by criitcal scholars, the rest are controversial to some extent.>galaxy brained take you got there,The take is basically that large parts of the traditional narrative are unconformable or false, and thus we do not just take it for granted that those elements are true. > Polycarp, his disciple,For instance this claim, Polycarp never explicitly says he studied under John, later authors did, and for that reason we do not just assume that it is true. It might be true, but we don't know that it is. >are the ones traditionally attributed unless you go with convoluted theories like "Q" which have no basis other than speculation.Q theory which is really just the idea that Chirstians had an oral tradition before they wrote the Jesus stories down. It is in fact speculation, but is in better company than the idea of apostolic authorship, which just does not align with the dating and language of the gospels.>love though how we've moved past arguing whether or not John was a historical figureBecause its not important the point.
>>17426369>How could mythicists possibly explain away the historical John the Apostle, if we bake into that he was the literal disciple of an historical Jesus?they can't, mythicsits are idiots, adn their claims fall apart upon any amount of scrutiny in regards to the ton of early church schollarship which wasn't just invented like they would love to claim it was
>>17426371>Q theory which is really just the idea that Chirstians had an oral tradition before they wrote the Jesus stories down. It is in fact speculation, but is in better company than the idea of apostolic authorship, which just does not align with the dating and language of the gospels.It doesn't even contradict the idea of traditional auhtorship. Why woudln't Luke incroporate the oral tradition or a sayings gospel? That's how historians wrote things in antiquity. The stance of reddit atheists is absurd really. They're just looking for a gotcha.>>17426371>Because its not important the point.John being a historical figure is extremely important.
>>17426375No but seriously, you think mythicists just forgot that John was the APOSTLE of Jesus?
>>17426383Can John be a historical figure, without there being a historical Jesus?
>>17426383s Why woudln't Luke incroporate the oral tradition or a sayings gospel? Well, supposing you had direct access to the apostles, or in some cases were an apostle, you would expect a lot of first hand accounts rather than copying earlier gospels and the local oral tradition.>The stance of reddit atheists is absurd really. They're just looking for a gotcha.Many Christians accept the skeptical position on authorship and count of critical scholars. I will admit that they tend to be more theologically liberal, which to some here means htey might as well be a reddit atheist,but technically they are not.
>>17426383>John being a historical figure is extremely important.Yes, but not to my point though.
>>17426415>Well, supposing you had direct access to the apostles, or in some cases were an apostle,Luke was Paul's disciple. Paul's contact with Jesus was already outlined earlier. John's gospel, also has the least overlap with the others, which contradicts your premise. This thread is awful. Stick to Pokemon or something else. No one suggests that the gospels were written while Jesus was alive, so of course most of them would be sourced with whatever redords were produced by his followers like his sayings and parables, which I rarely if ever hear schollars disputing were authored by Jesus. You're acting like this should have been shot like a documentary or something with four separate interviews with Peter instead of written like an antique history in the genre of antique histories which it was.
>>17426436>Paul's contact with Jesus was already outlined earlierMagic vision, right?
>>17426448Yeah, you're an asshole arguing in bad faith, we already know that. Too bad that will never fix your relationship with your Christian parents who don't accept your lifestyle. lol
>>17426436>Luke was Paul's disciple. I am aware of the traditional narrative.>John's gospel, also has the least overlap with the others, which contradicts your premise.Not really, as we already touched on, John's gospel is a very late product of several generations of tinkering. I wouldn't go as far as to call it fan fiction, but its historical value is somewhat suspect.>No one suggests that the gospels were written while Jesus was alive,Correct, though I don't believe anything like that has come up.> so of course most of them would be sourced with whatever redords were produced by his followers like his sayings and parables,I mean, sure if you don't accept that Mark was an apostle, or that Mathew new an apostle. It almost works for Luke, as you pointed out, except he was supposedly well traveled along with Paul and could have met many sources. Instead it looked like he was trying to improve on and correct Mark, a writer supposedly closer to the events. >You're acting like this should have been shot like a documentary or something with four separate interviews with Peter instead of written like an antique history in the genre of antique histories which it was.You appear to be unaware that antique histories of the period are often subject to a great deal of doubt and skepticism. At the very least sources like Tacitus are seen as massively bias, and the idea they might have made up details is hardly out of the question. Treating the gospels like their contemporary historical sources means subjecting them to a great deal of skepticism. Further, it is not the job of history to validate theological narratives, and in fact, it has been argued that history should adhere to Methodological naturalism. Even if a miracle did happen, the best history can say is that people at the time claimed or believed a miricle happened.
>>17426455>Not really,Yes it is.>>17426455>John's gospel is a very late productNo evidence of this. And if it was, it would have more dependency on the other gospels like your (wrong) theory suggests since they would have been in great circulation by then.>>17426455>product of several generations of tinkeringno evidence of this whatsoever, something you completely pulled out of your ass, there are no earlier versions of john's gospel to compare it against>>17426455>I mean, sure if you don't accept that Mark was an apostle, or that Mathew new an apostle. It almost works for Luke, as you pointed out, except he was supposedly well traveled along with Paul and could have met many sources. Instead it looked like he was trying to improve on and correct Mark, a writer supposedly closer to the events.Nah, this is a dumb argument. If the 12-72 apostles recorded Jesus's sayings and parables, then of course those would be used as a source versus re-interviewing apostles decades later in whatever far flung cities they were evangelizing in to get a separate version of what they remember those sayings or parables to have been. >>17426455>You appear to be unaware that antique histories of the period are often subject to a great deal of doubt and skepticism.And the ones from the Bible are giving extra autistic scrutiny versus those others ones because scholars tend to be atheist asshats with an agenda instead of treating accounts of Jesus the same as they would for any other histroical figure. The fact they came to consensus that the Jesus and the apostles were historical figures despite that, and making Reddit very mad, shows how strong the evidence is.
>>17426452lol cope. Jesus is not real. If you belive that magic shit. Sell all your money to become a fucking trad as fuck christian or become enuch to please your jew daddy.
>>17426466>Na uhWell, you might think the arguments are bad, but I thought we were arguing over what scholars thought, not whether their ideas were accurate. After all, you use those scholars to defend the historical Jesus, so if they aren't reliable you shouldn't do that. >And the ones from the Bible are giving extra autistic scrutiny That might be your view if you haven't taken many high level sources or read deeply on the subject. If the biblical texts has gotten more attention its because it is more prominent, and the majority of that attention is still from Chirsitans, even among critical biblical scholars, outright atheists are the minority>because scholars tend to be atheist asshats with an agendaAnd now we get to what you really think without any pretense to holding academia is esteem. Your position is just an inverse of the mythcists who say scholars cant be trusted because they are too Christian and thus "can't imagine" Jesus not being real. Your not even correct. Atheists are a minority in biblical scholarship, even skeptical biblical scholarship.
>>17426469Considering the whole of mainstream schollarship and academia agrees with me that Jesus lived, you're the one coping. Also I like how you don't deny being a homosexual mad at your parents. Like all stormfags from Rohm to Fuentes, you are closeted gays.
>>17426477Just don't bother reading what some of those scholars think the historical Jesus was like. You might not like what you see.
>>17426475>Well, you might think the arguments are badThey are. Also you introduced the word "facts" into this discussion and then start references the highly disputed and circumstantial "Q" theory which takes more faith to believe in than the gospels themselves.>>17426475>>17426475>but I thought we were arguing over what scholars thought, not whether their ideas were accurate. After all, you use those scholars to defend the historical Jesus, so if they aren't reliable you shouldn't do that.It's because they are minimalist as possible and still have to admit that the butt hurt Redditors refrain of "Jesus wasn't real" is BS is a great thing to point to and makes those people seethe.>>17426475>outright atheists are the minoritythey are atheists, most of them just claim to be "culturtual christians" who are so secular they don't even believe in the human soul, this is like pointing out schollars from Israel being ethnically Jewish as some kind of gotcha>>17426475>And now we get to what you really think without any pretense to holding academia is esteem.You're losing this debate really. Minimalists, which the mainstream schollars certainly are, are biased, agenda driven and should be called out as such.>>17426475>Your not even correct. Atheists are a minority in biblical scholarship, even skeptical biblical scholarship.Fucking bullshit. And now you are the one who is criticizing scholarship as untrustworthy. lol
>>17426477Anglo scholars is not the world. He is not real.
>>17426484>Just don't bother reading what some of those scholars think the historical Jesus was like. You might not like what you see.Your premise was that Jesus never existed. Great goal posting moving you larping loser.
>>17426487>Anglo scholars is not the world. He is not real.Its' the conesnus of all historians. He lived, and you can pound sand, becuase that doesn't change no matter how much you want it to. Go out and argue that Caesar's existence was a conspiracy as well. You're an anti-knowledge idiot.
>>17426488if you belive paul because of seeing jesus in his dream. it means jew daddy is not real.
>>17426489no, the majoriy belive that doesn't mean that is the fact. If you belive Paul, you are anti - knowledge and science.
>>17426490Peter believed Paul, and Peter certainly knew Jesus. So yeah, stay mad.
>>17426492>no, the majoriy belive that doesn't mean that is the fact.How do you think historical facts are decided then if not by historian consensus. Are you retarded and think video tape existed 2,000 years ago?
>>17426494Peter belive Paul doesn't mean Peter is not a dumb jew. He can fake the story. You christian belive Paul because Paul gainst circumsicion.
>>17426500>doesn't mean Peter is not a dumb jewDo you think admitting you are a retarded troll arguing in bad faith means anything in this thread? lol
>>17426499yes, science showing that. No such thing as jew shit can fly in the sky so he is not real. His shit about heal the people is so digusting too. So this is fake stoy people.
>>17426502show me Peter belive Paul make Paul see jesus is real?
>>17426503>yes, science showing thatShow me the controlled experiment that can prove that Alexander the Great existed, you fucking retard.>>17426503>No such thing as jew shit can fly in the sky so he is not real. His shit about heal the people is so digusting too. So this is fake stoy people.You talk like foreign baby on crack. Learn English, mother fucker.>>17426504AGAIN, learn English. This is getting sad. You sound like that Yahoo Answers caveman meme now.
>>17426505at least Alexander doesn't claim he can fly as jew shit in sky. Who care he is real. They just know that Greece scripture tech is exist in afghanistan. But if jesus is real. At least make him more human but most are gay and fake as fuck. Flying jew sound like a faggot story.
>>17426508You sound like a faggot story since you can't even write in normal English sentences. Jesus lived. Stay mad.
>>17426505jesus healing is gay too. You cannot speak beasue of the demon. So gay and fake.
>>17426509See cannot prove anything. Show me Paul dream is real. If he is real Paul need to describe what he see in dream. If not, it gay and fake.
>>17426509still mad because faggot jesus is fake as fuck. Give the real evidence like jesus exist in the sky.
>>17426486>Also you introduced the word "facts" into this discussionIn relation to certain claims you are making, and you referenced the Q theory before I did. >It's because they are minimalist They are not minimalists, they speculate on all sorts of things, but all historians hedge what they say with qualifiers. Anyone who actually knew how history is done would realize this. Its a near universal practice.> admit that the butt hurt Redditors refrain of "Jesus wasn't real" is BS is a great thing to point to and makes those people seethMy first post you replied to was pointing out the problems with mythcism.>they are atheists, most of them just claim to be "culturtual christians"Secret athiests, got it.>You're losing this debate really. Minimalists, which the mainstream schollars certainly are, are biased, I have not made many arguments on the history since up till now that is not hwat I thought we were arguing. Nor have you, you have mostly just dismissed any idea you don't like, and bring up apostolic tradition as if it deserves our deference. >And now you are the one who is criticizing scholarship as untrustworthy. lolUnlike you, I don't believe someone having different spiritual beliefs than me makes them untrustworthy, particularly when they follow proper historical methods. >>17426488Your premise was that Jesus never existedNo it isn't.
>>17426514>HOW IS BABBY FORMED?>HOW IS BABBY FORMED??https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK7PkjgeuEU
>>17426516gay jesus who is not exist and the fucking dumb jew worshipper still worship withou any real evidence. Stay mad gay as fuck. If you belive jesus healing teach is real. You are dumber than cave man.
>>17426516do you want to worship him if he brown but not white. And want your children say jesus "i love you brown man jew."
>>17426515>In relation to certain claims you are making, and you referenced the Q theory before I did.And you predictably went to that, an unproven theory based on inferences, because there is nothing actually fact based in your debate toolbox regarding who authored the gospels.>>17426515>They are not minimalistsThey absolutely are. Modern schollars treat piles of chruch histories the same way skepitcs treat ghost hunting videos. No other portion of history receives this level of autistic scrutinizing. >>17426515>Secret athiests, got it.You're doding what I said. These supposed Christian schollars don't believe in any of the tennets of the faith. They don't even believe in the human soul or life after death. They are atheists, and if you ever heard any of them talk you would realize this. They are less Christian than even the most pro-abotion Democrat is, because they don't even claim to have faith in what they are studying.>>17426515>and bring up apostolic tradition as if it deserves our deference.You have no counter argument against it at all other than conspiracy theories that suggest things like "Well maybe Polycarp's student lied about Polycarp being John's apostle." Moron.>>17426515>Unlike you, I don't believe someone having different spiritual beliefs than me makes them untrustworthy, particularly when they follow proper historical methods.They're not Christians, they do not have faith, they are going to hell most likely.>>17426515>Your premise was that Jesus never existed>No it isn't.It's the entire premise of OP. Great job wasting several hours autistically defending his premise then.
>>17423001Test
>>17423001Enjoy burning in Hell, forever!>m-magic lava!!You'll never have a moment's rest, and you brought it all upon yourself. :D
>>17426526Faggot belive in jesus is low iq level. Become enuch and become poor so maybe you can enter his kingdom after life.
>>17426528ok become poor and kill yourself to reach to heaven and maybe don't wash your hand to closer your jew daddy.
>>17426526>They're not Christians, they do not have faith, they are going to hell most likely.why don't cut your dick so you cannot watch porn and prayer in fucking moutain to have ticket in heaven christard?
>>17426533I'm going to heaven no matter what I do. You could have free salvation too, but you'd much rather shit your pants to dunk on God. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me. Have fun with your eternal agony!
>>17426537how do you know? Jesus teach you in the dream? why don't do that shit like that in bible? you can have higher chance if you have faith? who care this shit hole earth? your treasure in heaven bro?
>>17426541>how do you know? Jesus teach you in the dream?No, he taught me in the Bible.>why don't do that shit like that in bible? I do some stuff in the Bible and other stuff I don't, like 100% of humanity. The Bible doesn't tell us to cut our dicks off or retreat into the mountains. That's your own tumorous brain telling you that.>you can have higher chance if you have faith?What?>who care this shit hole earth?People who have to live on it.>your treasure in heaven bro?Some of it.
>>17423001Ok and?
>>17426543>No, he taught me in the Bible.so do you wash your hand? so if you don't belive your jesus teaching. He say become enuch is the fucking gift from the god. If you have the ability to cut your dick so you can live withou married you can have higher chance. You have the fucking faith right. Why don't fucking sell your money to become christian too?
>>17426543if you don't follow him what he teach, so you don't beliveh him and call you are christian. Sell all your money to the poor and don't wash your hand.
>>17426526>And you predictably went to that,Because you didnt even seem to understand what it is. >Modern scholars treat piles of chruch histories the same way skeptics treat ghost hunting videos. No other portion of history receives this level of autistic scrutinizing. Are you kidding? Scholars love to tear holes in old "traditonal" sources. They love raising new questions. You just sound like someone who does not know how history is done at an academic level. >These supposed Christian schollars don't believe in any of the tennets of the faith. They don't even believe in the human soul or life after death.Who are you talking about? which scholars? Do you know any? I am sure there are some that fit this, but I am equally sure other do not, and who gets to define when they cross the line into a "proper Christian"? >You have no counter argument against it at all other than conspiracy theories that suggest things like "Well maybe Polycarp's student lied about Polycarp being John's apostle."People lie, people make mistakes, people exaggerate. Why didn't Polycarp say anything about learning under John? it sounds like a pretty big deal if he did. Why does this only come up after he is dead? Irenaeus was writing the better part of a century after the fact. By that point in time an apostolic connection was considered important to back up theological claims. >It's the entire premise of OP. Great job wasting several hours autistically defending his premise then.I don't know if you have ever been on 4chan before, but threads tend to meander, people were making multiple arguments that I responded to.> Moron.I have not once called you a name.
>>17426573>Because you didnt even seem to understand what it is.Oh yeah, the heckin Q theory is such a secret. And you just contradicted yourself saying I brought it up first.>>17426573>Are you kidding? Scholars love to tear holes in old "traditonal" sources. They love raising new questions. You just sound like someone who does not know how history is done at an academic level.I'm just not a neophyte child that sucks the metaphorical dick of people full of themselves that are constantly wrong about everything. You sound like you never mentally progressed beyond your early 20's.>>17426573>Who are you talking about? which scholars? Do you know any? I am sure there are some that fit this, but I am equally sure other do not, and who gets to define when they cross the line into a "proper Christian"?Plenty. Some of them having fucking reddit accounts where they argue with other redditors mad at them giving any credence to Biblical soruces at all, and then you have nuggest like, "I believe the soul is the human mind" and suggesting the resurrection was metaphorical and not physical, which means you are not a Christian per what the Bible says. They are Christians in the same way Jews at CNN or Warnter Bros. who don't believe the Torah is real are Jews.>>17426573>People lie, people make mistakes, people exaggerate. Why didn't Polycarp say anything about learning under John? it sounds like a pretty big deal if he did. Why does this only come up after he is dead? Irenaeus was writing the better part of a century after the fact. By that point in time an apostolic connection was considered important to back up theological claims.First of all, not all of Polycarp's epistles are pesevered. Second, it's Occam's Razor. Instead of giving more credence to the fact that Iraeneus was telling the truth about Polycarp you have to go directly to a conspiracy theory in which Iraeneus was lying. This is why it's minimalist bullshit. You just proved my premise.
>>17426594> And you just contradicted yourself saying I brought it up first.No, you did, but they way you brought it up was so strange it suggested to me you did not understand it.>I'm just not a neophyte child that sucks the metaphorical dick of people full of themselves that are constantly wrong about everything. I have lots of questions and criticisms of various historians, I just do it from the perspective of actually understanding what they are doing. >Plenty. Some of them having fucking reddit accountsOK will you name drop any, and have you read any of their work beyond reddit?>nstead of giving more credence to the fact that Iraeneus was telling the truth about Polycarp you have to go directly to a conspiracy theory in which Iraeneus was lying.I am sorry but "Occam's Razor" is not just assuming what someone wrote is true. >This is why it's minimalist bullshit. this is not a term historians typically use, so it threw me a bit, but you are right that if we don't have something better than "trust me bro" historians tend to hedge their bets when it comes to proclaiming it true. You are welcome to think that approach is bullshit, but it seems quite reasonable to admit you can't be sure when you have only minimal information. For my own part I think it is quite possible that Polycarp met people who were witness to Jesus ministry.
>>17424533Anon. Do you think a Christian made that image?
>>17426452No but seriously, Jesus's contact with Paul consists a vision, facilitated by miracle.Am I wrong?
>>17426631>No but seriously, Jesus's contact with Paul consists a vision, facilitated by miracle.>Am I wrong?Your premise is that Paul made up Jesus. But that's utterly retarded, because Paul knew Peter and James, who certainly knew Jesus.
>muh scholars Why do you not also defer to scholarship when the question is "historically, did a man walk on water 2000 years ago?"
>>17426634What's most likely, human making up story, or human talking with dead human? (or ascended to heaven, or whatever Jesus' status is supposed to be at the time)
If Paul made a police sketch drawing of Jesus, you think Peter would recognize him? This is so silly
>>17425846>>17425850Kino posts
>>17426604>No, you did, but they way you brought it up was so strange it suggested to me you did not understand it.Well, that's because your full of yourself or are new to this subject, probably both (and confirmed below).>>17426604>I have lots of questions and criticisms of various historians, I just do it from the perspective of actually understanding what they are doing.Biblical sources get more scrutiny than any other historical source. Full-stop. Stop lying and hiding behind this idea only you understand historians better than anyone else.>>17426604>OK will you name drop any, and have you read any of their work beyond reddit?I'm not name dropping any of these idiots and their books. I don't need to pull them into this discussion or whatever else you are attempting to do to side track from the fact you don't think atheist Bible scholars are minimalists. If you don't believe me, okay, but it's because you're a neophyte mark. The idea that the people who think their tasked with the job of debunking the Bible are actually true believers is completely idiotic, and you are an idiot too for not understanding this concept simply explained to you several times over.>>17426604>I am sorry but "Occam's Razor" is not just assuming what someone wrote is true.Then all of history is false, you brainlet. Not every fact in the historical record has piles of collaboration, which I'm sure has been pointed out to you many times in /his/.>>17426604>this is not a term historians typically useIt's used in Biblical scholarship, you dunce. I'm done talking to you, because it's obvious that the fact you don't know what Biblical maximialism or minimalism is is indicative of the fact you don't know anything about the scholarship at all:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_maximalismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_minimalism
Love how half the criticism of this minority position, is to point out that it's a minority position You're in good company, though. High level academia is just the same.
>>17426161Romulus was a villain. Attis committed self-mutilation out of madness, died, and was resurrected as a woman.
>>17426169A belief system cannot mutate when the original manuscript is still just around the corner.That's like saying that you can make a remake of some beloved film and think that people would accept that over the original. You absolutely can't
>>17426170>>17426208Oh buddyIt's not just a case of you checking the tomb. You can also ask the governor of Judea himself about the guy he crucifiedIf they were spreading lies, Poncious Pilate could easily arrest them all for defamation
>>17426800What original manuscript?Your bible wasn't compiled until the 300s.You seem to believe early christianity was a monolith, when this couldn't be further from the truth, as can be seen by the fact those church fathers of yours couldn't stop kvetching about heresies for a second of their lives.
>>17426862The original manuscript as in the very books and letters that were written down by the apostles themselves but didn't survive. This should easily be accessible to the apostolic fathers who held leadership roles in their communities, who may have members that are even older than them.The majority of the gospels were written around 40-70 AD and the last apostle to die was St. John the Apostle who died around 100 - 117 ADThe only way you can mutate it is if you were in some faraway province where people cannot fact-check it. But, the thing is, they are all in Rome or within reach of it.
>>17426886>The original manuscript as in the very books and letters that were written down by the apostles themselves but didn't survive. This should easily be accessible to the apostolic fathers who held leadership roles in their communities, who may have members that are even older than them.>The majority of the gospels were written around 40-70 AD and the last apostle to die was St. John the Apostle who died around 100 - 117 AD>The only way you can mutate it is if you were in some faraway province where people cannot fact-check it. But, the thing is, they are all in Rome or within reach of it.Most of the originals were lost when Jerusalem was razed by Titus. Becuase yes, unlike what Catholics wold want you to believe, Christianity at that time was centered on Jerusalem.
>>17426922Christians were kicked out of Jerusalem by the Pharisees, retard. They went to Rome and became big enough for Nero to notice and use them as a scapegoat for the fire of Rome
>>17426924>Christians were kicked out of Jerusalem by the Pharisees, retard. They went to Rome and became big enough for Nero to notice and use them as a scapegoat for the fire of RomeYou''re a fucking idiot. James the Just took over the church in Jerusalem after Jesus was resurrected. The history of the church of Jerusalem is existent still, You can look up who all the bishops were. The church didn't get screwed there until it was destroyed with everything else in 70 AD. Stop believing Catholic apologia that play acts like the only church was in Rome. You can start by actually reading Acts regarding the Council of Jerusalem.
>>17426930Having a persistent minority in Jerusalem doesn't make them the center of Christianity. Christianity is centered in Rome simply by the fact that it had a lot of Gentile converts there - many of which are skilled manpowerAs prophesized, Jews rejected the Messiah and was instead accepted by the Gentiles
>>17426936>Having a persistent minority in Jerusalem doesn't make them the center of Christianity.It was literally shown as such in Acts. Pound sand, papist.
>>17426660>Biblical sources get more scrutiny than any other historical source. Full-stop.Nah actually all sources which say that some guy flew into the sky on a cloud like Goku tend to get a lot of scrutiny. Historians also don't tend to believe stories about Simon Magus flying like Tenshinhan.
>>17426886Christian heresies prospered in the middle east and beyond. And the inequivocal center of christianity during the first three centuries of the first millennium AD was in the middle east and Greece/Anatolia, where they grew out of the Jewish diaspora.Really the only reason Rome had a christian community so early was because it was an absolutely monstrous megalopolis that attracted thousands of migrants per year. But still you can see how most of Acts and the Epistles takes place there.
>>17427005And just before you start, Rome also had its fair share of heretics.In fact, the first specific case of adoptionism we have is from Rome, where a guy (a butcher I think) went a little too far attempting to refute the gnostics and pissed off the orthodox.
>>17426799>Attis committed self-mutilation out of madness, died, and was resurrected as a woman.Which is embarrassing so he must have been a real person.
>>17423001You should add to the picture the apology of Socrates, the last days of Jesus are just a copy paste of Plato work
>>17426836Right, Pilate easily picks up his phone and makes a call to Rome and tell them to arrest Paul
>>17426836>You can also ask the governor of Judea himself about the guy he crucifiedBy the time the skeptical Roman pleb shows up in Judea and demands to talk to a governor. 24 years has passed since Pilate was the governor.This line of inquiry you made-up, for people to easily debunk Paul if he was making stuff up. It really is very silly. 1, Because it would be a really big task, travel that far and try to get ahold of witness and the governor from 30 years ago. It is not easy 2. Even if they did, and succeeded. It's not like the Christians in Rome has to care. They could just tell the sceptic he didn't look hard enough, surely the witnesses are there!I don't understand how apologizers think any of this stuff is supposed to actually work
>>17423417Very sketchy. There was probably a leader who united the Arabs, but it's more like Robin Hood than Julius Ceasar. There a few wholes in the narrative and Muslims refuse to cooperate so only schizo chuds are the ones who are doing research. https://islamicorigins.com/about/This guy is pro-Islam and even he admits that early Islam is really sketchy.
>>17423001Always nice to see horus in these meme infographics. Just shows that whoever made them has no clue what they are talking’s about
>>17427281>>17427311No, mateThere was never a recorded instance of a skeptic of the resurrection until 500 years later, precisely because they can all just confirm itFor the first 500 years, the only thing that they were skeptical about was whether Jesus was truly a human and he was the Messiah.
>>17427016>>17426161ALL stories are based on real people and real eventThe question is whether Romulus was truly the founder of Rome and whether Attis was a godThe answer is clearly not
>>17427486Please try to stay focus on the topic, which was why Paul telling a story about 500 witnesses, is not a good reason to believe his story about a man coming back from the dead
>>17427666No one in their time questioned the resurrection because they had common senseIf they were going to lie about it, they would make something even more impressive than just resurrection. You have cults saying that Ceasar ascended to Heaven on Haley's comet for example
>>17426554You need to take a chill pill Ranjesh
>>17427718What's most likely, man rising from the dead or people making up stories? >You have cults saying that Ceasar ascended to Heaven on Haley's comet for exampleSo if we make the story worse, and have Ceasar shit himself before he ascended. It would be more plausible to believe it? No one thinks like this. You don't think like this. It so retarded to pretend this is a reasonable way to go about figuring out what's true.We're back to you acting like a gullible child, and insisting that everyone else should too.Just as soon a story ad some "embarrassments", you instantly believe it? Of course not, give me a breakYou don't treat any other stories like that
>>17427872It isn't plausible, though and that's the pointIf you are going to do a fictional account, why would you half-ass it when every other cult is DBZ power level faggotry
>>17427718Right, I almost forgot, you keep saying different things This isn't what you responded with earlier in the threadYou told me people should just go to Judea and drag Jesus corpse through the streets.Do you understand why this is not an appropriate thing to tell people in Rome who is skeptical of Paul's story about 500 eyewitnesses?
>>17427884Try to use you imaginationCan you come up with some explanations for why we have the stories that we do, that is more probable than a man actually walking on water 2000 years ago?
>>17427901Try to use your common senseWhy would anyone do that? And this is not just anyone, but hundreds of people.You. Cannot. Make. That. Up
>>17427891NoI said 2 things.:1. If Jews wanted to kill Christianity, they could have just dragged a rotten corpse around and said that it was Jesus. No one would be able to tell the difference.But they didn'tWhy? Because they are aware, they know the truth, and they are afraid of it. But they are not repentant hence why they imposed Saul to try and destroy Christianity via violence. And failed2. If any Gentiles had doubts, just go to Judea and ask around. Christianity didn't start in Rome. It started in Jerusalem, right on the tomb, then it spread from there. The first Churches are literally just half a day's walk away
>>17423014Because they are insane and need a psychopomp to validate their existence
>>17424037Why couldn't all intelligent God convince the Jews with pure logic (and don't forget the myriad miraclez)
>>17427905>You. Cannot. Make. That. UpYou can, thoughI'll help you out, because your imagination just seems to shut off on this topic The people who made it up had an aesthetic preference for that kind of story. Literally that easy.They really liked the kinds of stories that exhibited meekness as a virtue, getting humiliated, those kind of tropesWhat's most probable, that, or man walking on water?Also, you kinda need to have an explanation for why the Jewish Messiah didn't bring an earthly kingdom and made Israel rule the world, or whatever the people at the time expected the Messiah to doYou can't make the story that awesome
>>17427936He could, he did, and they crucified him because feelings are more important to them.Just like everyone who denies ChristIt was never about the truth. But the ramifications of it
>>17427939>they did it because they just wanted toIdiot
>>17427928>1. If Jews wanted to kill Christianity, they could have just dragged a rotten corpse around and said that it was Jesus. No one would be able to tell the difference.What if they did, but nobody cared? How could you possibly know thatI don't think anyone actually did thatI think by the time Christianity was gaining traction, far to much time had passed for this to make sense
>>17427944What's most probable, people having an aesthetic preference for that kind of story OR man walking on water 2000 years ago? I'm being totally serious
>>17427884How you deal with the seconds part of the postYou being inconsistent and not reasoning like that in any other cases? Denial?
>>17427950They care enough to crucify ChristThey care enough to impose violent actsIt is laughable.You are laughableThe only logical answer is simply the fact that they already know that Christ is the Messiah and they are afraid of challenging him further. But they don't fear attacking his people>>17427953>>17427958Whatever helps you sleep at night
>>17427940No, that would be failing to convince them
>>17425258Appeal ad populum to convince others and grift. Why did Paul need donations?
>>17427964What's most probable, people having an aesthetic preference for that kind of story OR man walking on water 2000 years ago?
>>17427965Go to Bluesky and use facts about IQ and race. See where it lands you
>>17427969I do not have the superpower to always get what I want (omnipotence)
>>17427964If you don't want to talk about this, you don't have to reply it's literally that easy
>>17425850So it's a cloacal amalgamation of the various religious groups infighting in the 3rd century period? Uhh based
>>17426651Why do people always fall into this false dichotomy? It being stories about an actual guy who claimed to be the messiah and was executed is more likely than everything being made up whole clothe. Sure, Paul claims the things he taught was gained through divine revelation, but he must have known something about the beliefs of Christians before his conversion since he also claimed he persecuted them.
>>17427964>They care enough to crucify ChristWe have no reason to believe that this happened.>The only logical answer is simply the fact that they already know that Christ is the Messiah and they are afraid of challenging him further. The Gospels disagree, sorry.
>>17427964>why didnt they just drag his corpse through the street?The Gospels emphasize that Jesus physically, bodily, ascended to heaven because Jesus's body was considered to be a big weakness in the story. It's why they invented the story about the Roman Legionaires and the Jews conspiring to steal the body. Early Christian authors kept talking about this for centuries despite it no longer mattering (Pagan authors didn't give a shit about the body stuff), so there's clearly something that we're missing. So they probably did drag the body through the street, which would explain why it wasn't in the tomb, and why the Gospels ham up the miraculous nature of the event. This would also explain why the Jerusalem Community was such a failure that they had to send Saul to go con gentiles into giving them money. Remember, Jesus is supposed to have resurrected thousands of dead people, paraded them through the streets, and converted the entirety of the city's population. So why was the community failing? Because Jesus obviously wasn't the Jewish Messiah. But how could that be? Well, he didn't resurrect thousands of people and parade them through the streets, he didn't convert the entirety of the city, and claims of his tomb being empty weren't convincing because the people of Jerusalem knew that he didn't ascend. Why?Probably because a couple of Yids dragged the body through the street.
>>17428442It's not a false dichotomy, you are simply changing the topic to another question
>>17423001>>17423014>>17423018A better question is why would Christ's followers die for a lie that they didn't believe in and had nothing to gain from?
>>17423078>a failed apocalyptic prophetChrist prophesied that Rome would crush the Pharisees and the Jews and it happened.
>>17428455Oh, brother.You guys keep on doubling down, never realizing how silly your conspiracies soundSaul was already rich. He has no need to join the oppressed people. And he has no need to keep the act up when things turned south. Acts alone tells you that he routinely got beaten, arrested, and almost killed. His own people celebrated his exile to Rome. And you're saying he did that for a lie.Drop the tin foil hat, mate. There's no lie hereEverything that happened happened as prophesizedIsaiah 53 tells you that the Messiah will be rejected and killed for our sinsAnd Daniel 9 tells you that the temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed And Jesus tells you outright that his words shall be heard throughout the entire world.Everything is running as prophesized. It is up to you wether you wish to join him in his glory or try to sabotage it
>>17428472No he didn't, but he did say that he'd be back in the lifetimes of his original followers. 1,925 years later, he's not back yet.
>>17428487I accept your concession. You're right, you probably should have read my post before babbling this gibberish, given that all of your arguments have already been refuted.
>>17428455Good post.
>>17428499You have made your choice
>>17428504Sorry, I meant >>17428487.
>>17423001So you're saying Christ is distinct because of all of the above? That must mean He's most likely who He says He says. That and the fact that we have non-Christian sources that He existed. Moreover, Christ is distinct for having two natures: He's fully God and fully man.
>>17428499
>>17428683It really is no fun to play with you, when you stop replying seriously and break character when the discussion goes beyond surface level
>>17423014Baptism was a Jewish ritual before Christ which signified repentance. Crucifixion was the standard punishment for treason in ancient Rome and Jews believed that a man claiming to be the Messiah while blaspheming all their traditions which they made into idols was grounds for arrest so they turned him in. And this martyrdom provides the framework for Christianity.
>>17423014>Why would the Jesus cult invent stories of its founder being baptized by another manThe whole John the Baptist thing is so weird. John is part of a pre existing, although new, religious movement kinda makes it seem like Christianity was kicking off, before Christ entered the picture
>>17429025Duh!John the Baptist said it himself: he was there to pave the road for the coming Messiah, who just arrived
>>17428666>we have non-Christian sources that He existedInterpolations.
>Paul wrote about Christ several years after he died, meeting many people who knew him (e.g. Peter and his brother James)>Papias also interviewed people who had followed Jesus>We have many details about his life from multiple sources>Non-flattering details are included which would be against the interest of those writing the history>Non-Christian authors have mentioned Christianity not that long after Jesus died. Similar to if you were writing a history of a politician from the 1950s now, it wouldn't be in question that the guy existed because it's so recentI think it's reasonable to say he was a real person that existed, based on this.
So there probably as a guy named Jesus born in Israel. He defiantely had a mom and dad. He even had brothers. Yes. About 2 brothers. One of his brothers hated st Paul. They apparently had many arguments and disliked one another. Something about not teaching what Jesus wanted and instead his own teachings which pissed him and alot of others off. Now the story about the viegin birth is a old addition. Aka somebody added that to the story at a later date. Ditto for walking on water and healing the blind. So throw all that shit out the window. So Jesus was a apacalyptic Jewish preacher that wanted people to be nice and be prepared for the coming end of days. Something alot of people were saying back then. He wasn't even the only jew preaching that end of days shit lol. He was different in the sense that he wanted to reform jewdaism and wanted gentiles aka non jews to be able to practice his new form of Judaism. Although some experts say he probably wasn't trying to create a new religion. Blame Christianity on st Paul. Should be called Paulinism bc without him his ideas would be lost to history. He definitely existed. But many parts of the Bible is bullshit. Even the Torah mentions him and is pretty mean on him. Also, many religions copy from each other. The idea of being judged on your actions om death comes from zorostranism.
>>17428467>why do people combine different stories together>eventually turning something mundane into something grandThey can believe it, no one's questioning that. People believe wrong things all the time.They gained the underdog retribution.
>>17429293Except we have writings from the apostolic fathers telling you that they all have the exact same story that we have now
>>17429285There was no jew preaching about the end of days. They were expecting the Messiah to arrive as a warrior kingIn fact, that idea of apocalypse doesn't exist in any religion at all as the common motif was that time is eternal. No beginning, no end, it just comes and go at any time.OT gives you a beginning and Jesus says that there will soon be an end - an end for the life of sin, at least.
Do you think Jesus went around openly telling people he was God?I don't.However I believe he was telling it to his inner circle of followers, and keeping it on the down-low.
>>17430023uh, yes he didThat's what got him killed, as a matter of fact
>>17429025>kinda makes it seem like Christianity was kicking off, before Christ entered the pictureThis was brought up earlier in the thread, by >>17425296. The Jewish aspects of "Christianity" really start about 200 years before things get going.
>>17430454Nah, dude. The Jews had to conspire to kill Jesus.If Jesus just went around in public telling people he was God, that would be suicide by Roman - he would have done the work for them.I can't recall. What was the reason's the Jews had to conspire to have the Romans kill Jesus? I remember there being some reason for this. That it would be a problem for them to kill Jesus themselves. Paul sure didn't seem to have a problem persecuting and killing Christians, so probably the reason didn't stand anymore by that time.
Who is the Father of Jesus Christ?
>>17431014What I want to know is, if we checked Jesus' Y-chromosome- Would it look like Joseph's?Or did God miracle up a divine Y-chromosome from scratch?
>>17431007>I can't recall. What was the reason's the Jews had to conspire to have the Romans kill Jesus?That's straight up one of the best evidences for the Bible's authenticityFirstly, Judea was under Roman governance, and no one was allowed to be executed without the approval of the governorSecondly, Judea is considered an extremely hot bed. The entire place is like a minefield where revolts happen every few decades.In fact, the bible tells you a passing passage of >But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee,But never explains "Why" they were afraid of Archelaus.Secondary sources then tell us that the guy was completely cruel and had 3000 Jews killed "like sacrifices" over a riotThe fact that the Bible barely mentions such a significant threat tells you that it is a common knowledge at the time it was written. Which means that it was written by people who lived through those times.All in all, historical findings have found nothing that can be considered inaccurateReleasing of non-murderer prisoners was done regularly to appease the turmoilAnd crucified men do sometimes get taken out off the cross and given pa roper burial.Then you get Acts where Luke got every terminology and geographical description with so much accuracy, scholars use it as a reference to fact check other ancient historians
>>17431022Jesus was FTM.
>>17429816>telling youWell, I guess if they said it, it has to be true, right?Also, we don't have the originals of the New Testament books, and have no idea who the authors actually were. Hell, scholars can't agree on how many authors or even the order of their order.
>>17423001>>Because there's a story about a magic jew that flies around on a magic cloudJesus is Goku, holy fuck.
>>17424590Yeah, I’m pretty sure that he knew what he was doing. He was tempting them, testing their morality.
>>17431748>no one was allowed to be executed without the approval of the governorPaul had a license to persecute and execute Christians?
>>17432667Nah. He cannot kill Christians hence why the Apostles remained untouched. He had their grounds destroyed but Rome kept a strict monopoly on their arms because the place is too violent.Of all the places they invaded, Judea is one of the few that never received autonomy, because the Jews proved that they cannot be trusted with peace
>>17432683>Paul cannot kill ChristiansWhen Paul was persecuting Christians, what exactly do you think he was doing? Talking sternly to them?
>>17432783Whatever he was doing, it could not involve direct violent confrontation as that would get them arrested by Rome
>>17429823Believe it or not the Apocalypse is a long Jewish tradition (the term specifically refers to Jewish and later christian eschatological works) dating back to the Book of Daniel, and Revelation was authored in that vein.Not to mention all the other apocalypses that didn't make into cannon scripture.
>>17432793No, it's notApocrypha is a literary genre that just means "to unveil". It is a genre that is all about divine, often foreboding, prophecies but it was never at a point of literal end of the world as we know it.>hurr Ragnarok Ragnarok never existed in Norse mythology until like 600ADs
>>17432788>it could not involve direct violent confrontation as that would get them arrested by RomeI don't understand where you get this super strong presupposition that it's impossible for Jews to violently persecute Christians in ancient Judea fromIt makes very little sense to meIt's so easy to explain, by the Romans not actually enforcing this supposed monopoly on violence in practice (like, didn't Jews stone people to death back then?)Or, it being possibly to kill people without the Romans knowing
>>17432928They are enforcing it hence why there was never a single organized militia in Judea.Mobs, riots, and assassination are sporadic and the result of Rome's inability to control "everything". Nevertheless, they still upheld order whenever they could hence why Christianity was allowed to propagate
>>17432952Yeah, I just think this idea of non-violent persecution is kinda silly
>>17432959Of course, it's violent. but it isn't an organized military act. Saul may have led men to destroy communes and confiscated wealth, but he himself is not a soldier - none of them are. It's more akin to some gangster turf war
>>17432816>Ragnarok never existed in Norse mythology until like 600ADsNo, this is wrong. Sorry!>>17432783>what exactly do you think he was doing?We have no idea. All we know is that there was a community in Jerusalem that thought that Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef was the Jewish Messiah, that they ran out of money, and that some guy named Saul came to Greece to fleece goyim and send it back to Israel. We have no way of confirming any of his statements other thant his. There's no reason to believe that he didn't just make his background up wholesale.
>>17433327Yes, it is correct. Sorry!Your false gods are dead
