>>18247822
Wanting to make money off of libtards and christcucks

>>18247822
The New Testament books are completely different texts that just happen to be put in a compilation together. If I put a biography of Napoleon in a compilation that’s 90% fiction, that would not suddenly make the biography of Napoleon unreliable. The reliability of a biography of Napoleon is not determined by how reliable some unrelated book is. You are genuinely mentally disabled if you cannot understand this.

Jesus not existing at all creates problems and solves nothing.

How are those contradictory claims?

>>18247856
It would though

10% facts is not enough to believe your facts

>>18247856
Nope. North Korean propaganda says kim jong il shot 7 holes in one in a row and didn't need to defecate. Obviously those things are impossible, so we know kim jong il never existed

>>18247822
On December 25, 274, Aurelian, after unifying the Roman Empire, instituted Roman monotheism under the god Sol.

The other gods were relegated to mere saints focused on practical causes, such as the saint of marriage (Eros) and the saint of metalworkers (Hephaestus).

Later, the only thing Flavius Constantinus and Flavius Theodosius did was replace the god Sol (Sol was the god's name) with Jesus, who had been created by his family during the time of Flavius Vespasianus and Flavius Titus.

And, over time, the names of the saints were changed from pagan names to Catholic names.

Until the 4th century, Christianity was merely a game played by the Roman elite, who controlled writing in the Empire. Only a small elite had full literacy, money to buy writing materials, and the right to produce and reproduce texts in the empire without being killed.

The much-talked-about persecution of Christians was nothing more than conflicts between the elite who wanted to adopt Christianity as the state belief and the elite who opposed it.

There is NOT A SINGLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE of the existence of early Christian groups in the first two centuries. Nothing. Zero.

We have some texts from the 2nd century written by members of the elite allied with the Flavian family, the elite who destroyed Jerusalem. Many of these texts were written using false names and based on lies and propaganda.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN GROUPS IN THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. NOTHING. ZERO. NIENTE

>>18247878
So Hercules existed???

>>18247886
Quite possibly

>>18247888
>Quite possible

Kek

The only Jesus who EXISTED was Jesus Ben Sapphias. But he was from the jewish war

>>18247856
>The New Testament books are completely different texts that just happen to be put in a compilation together. If I put a biography of Napoleon in a compilation that’s 90% fiction, that would not suddenly make the biography of Napoleon unreliable. The reliability of a biography of Napoleon is not determined by how reliable some unrelated book is. You are genuinely mentally disabled if you cannot understand this.

This comparison is also made by Bart Ehrman but it's the most disingenuous comparison LMFAO.

"Oh if Jesus didn't exist, does that mean Plato didn't?!"

Yeah, here's the thing,

1) Plato isn't described as someone who was the son of God and did otherworldly miracles
2) Plato left writings attributed to him which are simply philosophical teachings and dialogues on running governments
3) Plato doesn't have 1m+ forgeries from churches all around the world for 2,000 years claiming to have his belongings or body parts

LMFAO

Meanwhile, Napoleon? What do we have?

1) His body parts
2) His death masks
3) Letters / Documents signed by him
4) Accounts of thousands who saw him or met him personally
5) His arms and insignia
6) Landmarks he established

LMFAO

>>18247893
"Jesus Ben Sapphias " (or Joshua, son of Sapphias) was aJewish patriotic and military leader during the First Jewish-Roman War, acting as commander of Idumea and belonging to a priestly family, mentioned by Flavius Josephus as a revolutionary general, possibly a former high priest, who led a group of sailors and poor people in Jerusalem, being killed by the Zealots.
Key points about Jesus Ben Saphias:
Identity: Joshua, son of Safas (or Ben Zappha/Sapphias).
Function: General (στρατηγός) of the Jewish defense forces in Idumea, appointed after the defeat of Cestius Gallus.
Context: He participated in the early stages of the revolt against Rome (around 66 AD).
Actions: He led a faction of sailors and poor people in riots in Jerusalem, setting fire to the palace and seeking wealth.
Family: He belonged to a family of high priests, although he is not on all lists of high priests.
Death: He was killed in Jerusalem by the Zealots, who considered him a traitor, along with other leaders such as Ananus ben Ananus.
Confusion: He is distinct from other "Jesus" of the time, such as Jesus ben Ananias (the prophet) or Jesus, son of Damneus.
In summary, Jesus Ben Sapphias was a prominent military and revolutionary figure in the tumultuous Jerusalem scene during the war against the Romans, acting as a patriotic, yet controversial, leader before his assassination.

>>18247822
"Jesus ben Gamaliel" refers toJesus, son of Gamaliel , a Jewish high priest of the 1st century who succeeded Jesus, son of Damneus, around the year 63 AD.C. He is distinct from the famous Rabbi Gamaliel (grandfather of Jesus ben Gamaliel), who was the teacher of the apostle Paul and a member of the Sanhedrin, known for his defense of the apostles in Acts 5, advising caution against persecuting them, for if their work were of men, it would fall; if it were of God, it would be indestructible.
Key Points:
Who was he: A Jewish high priest in Jerusalem.
Line of Succession: He replaced Jesus, son of Damneus, as high priest around 63 AD.
Distinction: He should not be confused with his grandfather, Rabbi Gamaliel, a very influential Pharisee and Doctor of the Law, mentioned in the New Testament.
Context: He lived during the Second Temple period, a time of great turmoil and Jewish religious leadership.
In summary, "Jesus ben Gamaliel" is a historical figure in the Jewish priesthood, best known for his position in Jerusalem, while his grandfather, Gamaliel, is famous for his role in the Sanhedrin and for having been Paul's teacher.

>>18247893
>The only Jesus who EXISTED
It was the sixth most common male name for first century jews in the levant

>>18247894
>Plato left writings attributed to him which are simply philosophical teachings and dialogues on running governments
Oh awesome, do we have any of these "attributed manuscripts" that were written, say, within a century of his alleged death? No? Let's be reasonable then, what about the next few centuries after his alleged death? Also no? Okay, I guess you were just making that up then.

>>18247922
Kindly point to the 100k+ forgeries on Plato, thanks bud.

But you know what, I'll tell you that Plato never existed.

What are you gonna do now? :)

>>18247941
>Kindly point to the 100k+ forgeries on Plato, thanks bud
So forgeries retroactively make someone cease to exist? Clearly hitler didn't exist then, why else would someone forge his diaries
>What are you gonna do now
I would probably tell you that the existence of jesus is more plausible than the existence of the fictional mystic "plato"
This is considering that jesus was one of the most common jewish male names of that time, his recorded apocalyptic teachings were similar to other known contemporaries such as the essenes, and the earliest manuscripts of the gospels we possess were written roughly a century after he died.
Unlike plato, he was widely despised and his followers were persecuted by both pagans and jews. Both of these groups wrote many polemics arguing against jesus's divinity. Despite this, they never claimed jesus did not exist: the talmud claims he is burning in hell for blasphemy, the pagan writer poryphory of tyre claimed he was a magician, celsus said a virgin birth is impossible and jesus was a charlatan.
Denying christ's divinity has been common for millennia, yet strangely, denying the existence of jesus the man seems to be entirely a modern phenomenon

>>18247985
I don't believe Plato existed so your entire argument is nullified.

And the following point,
>This is considering that jesus was one of the most common jewish male names of that time

Works against you, retard.

>>18248015
Sorry anon, I'll try to fit the tone of the board better
>don't believe Plato existed so your entire argument
Non sequitur retard, there is more contemporary evidence of jesus existing fag
>Works against you, retard.
It doesn't, retard. It's highly likely an apocalyptic jewish preacher named jesus existed, and the gospels were based on this person. You would have understood this if you weren't a niggerjewtranny

>>18248031
>Non sequitur retard, there is more contemporary evidence of jesus existing fag

Kindly provide evidence of this singular figure from the 1st century AD.

References to interpolations and forgeries of Josephus and Tacitus and others will rightly be ignored.

>>18247985
>denying the existence of jesus the man seems to be entirely a modern phenomenon
In the new testament itself there are a few verses that might represent seething against early Christians who denied a historical Jesus, like,

2 John 1:7, "Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!"

2 Peter 1:16 (A forgery according to Ehrman), "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty."

And there might be a lot more outside it if Richard Carrier is correct about much of what gets called the docetism heresy actually being Christian Jesus mythicism. They wouldn't have denied a Jesus entirely, but would have believed in a Jesus who was crucified directly by the archons and resurrected before making himself known to anyone in a spiritual form, or perhaps a Jesus who did descend all the way to earth to be killed at some point, but who was so obscure as to be only known through scripture and revelation after the fact anyway, because it was supposed to be secret, like the trope in Mark or in the Vision of Isaiah.

True Christians are hyper-Jesus-historicists. There have been so many manifestations of Jesus in history that you can't even keep track of them.

Gospel of Philip, 24

Jesus played a trick on everyone. He did not come in his true form, but in a form that others could see.

He came to everyone. To the great he came as someone great. To the small he came as someone small. To the angels he came as an angel. And to humans he came as a human. Some who saw him thought they were seeing themselves. Thus the Word was hidden from all.

But when he revealed himself in glory to his disciples on the mountain, he was not small. He appeared as someone great. Or, rather, he made his disciples great, so that they could see his true greatness.

>>18248073
>They wouldn't have denied a Jesus entirely, but would have believed in a Jesus who was crucified directly by the archons and resurrected before making himself known
That always seemed unlikely to me (that people believing that were the earliest christians.) There were (probably) multiple ebionite groups, and
>jesus is a (regular human) messiah/teacher that got crucified -> jesus is the incarnation of a divine thing that actually needed to be crucified -> ...
Seems like a more natural development, and it makes perfect sense as a cope if your leader who was supposed to save you got tortured to death by the romans

>>18247985
>Denying christ's divinity has been common for millennia, yet strangely, denying the existence of jesus the man seems to be entirely a modern phenomenon

Not modern at all, retard.

It was literally claimed to be false by many Roman Emperors and early figures in the first 6 centuries and considered a forgery back then by many.

>>18248132
Name one then. Name a single pagan or jewish writer that claimed jesus did not exist prior to 500 ad

>>18248138
>What is Docetism

>>18248156
Did docetists deny that jesus existed, appeared to be a man, and was thus a historical figure? I was talking about the historicity of whether someone named jesus existed

>>18248129
>That always seemed unlikely to me
Jesus being crucified by archons (demonic powers/angelic rulers) fits with how 1 Corinthians 2 was interpreted very early on and by the majority of academics for a long time IIRC, and is also how it reads to me.

I do think it seems weirder in English because the English word "crucified" is very specific to the Roman execution method compared to the Greek word translated as crucified and maybe even the Latin one originally, which can refer to a few different types of execution involving an upright stake or pole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauros
>Seneca mentions three different forms: "I see", says he, "three crosses, not indeed of one sort, but fashioned in different ways; one sort suspending by the head persons bent toward the earth, others transfixing them through their secret parts, others extending their arms on a patibulum."

The first one almost sounds like hanging, the second impalement, and the third what people think of when they hear crucifixion. But regardless, once you've just got impalement or in some other way being hung on a pole, the idea for Jesus being "crucified" can be obtained from Old Testament passages.

I also think it seems weird to the modern people because we're so far removed from a time period when the gods actually did stuff and had stuff happen to them. E.g. According to Carrier, there's a text written by Seneca the Elder discussing a painting of the god Prometheus being crucified, and he even says "Prometheus was tortured for the sake of men" which sounds very Jesus-y even though we would definitely say Prometheus wasn't a historical person.

>>18247822
>Jesus exists but I don't trust scribes

As he said you shouldn't.

>>18248182
Jesus being a primarily revelatory being also to me makes much better sense of just Paul's whole "thing," both his very early high Christology showing little or at best ambiguous concern for details of a historical Jesus and his teachings and his apparent success despite actively downplaying his connection to the other apostles for a long time (according to his own letters, not Acts), or the statement in Galations 2:8 that makes it sound like Peter and Paul's apostleship came about in a similar manner.
>For he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the gentiles.

>>18247884
>There is NOT A SINGLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE of the existence of early Christian groups in the first two centuries. Nothing. Zero.
Alexamenos Graffito

>>18248189
And it makes sense of Mark's apparent use of Paul's epistles (https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15934), highly literary character in certain respects, and insertion of what appear to be purely symbolic elements into the narrative.

And Paul talks about stuff like Christians being the body of Christ, Christ being revealed in him and others, wanting to identify with Christ in various ways, etc. all of which could give a clever would-be-gospel-writer the idea to create a historical Jesus character and put him into history as an archetypal representative of Christian ideas and Christ's influence through and on various people.

Like, if you take for granted that the first gospel was written by someone promoting a specifically Pauline Jesus, that seems like less weird of a thing to do if there wasn't aleady not-quite-Pauline historical Jesus around whose actual history you would be overwriting. And then other authors like Matthew writing their own gospels representing a fairly different Jesus, often blatantly using prior written gospels but altering things to suit their own purposes and making stuff up in the process (Matthew likes throwing in earthquakes), again seems more likely if what was going on was closer to a myth-writing competition.

>>18247884
Please come up with something new. The ossuary inscriptions are from like 40ad and name Jesus. Just spamming your memepaste isn't any fun.

>>18247822
>thinking historians use The New Testement as a source
Lol. Lmao, even

>>18247863
This.

>>18247822
He has an answer to this himself, that he repeats in every other interview.
Paul (historical figure that's attested outside of his own writings) in his personal correspondence claims to have met Peter and James, the brother of Jesus.
If Jesus wasn't real, youd think his brother would know.
>but Peter and James could have lied
They were leading the Jerusalem church at that point, what kind of cult works this way? If they're making everything up, it'd be easier to claim Peter or James were the messiah instead. Clearly they were picking up the pieces of a cult who's leader is already dead.

>>18248639
>Paul (historical figure that's attested outside of his own writings) in his personal correspondence claims to have met Peter and James, the brother of Jesus.

Kindly post the earliest extant record of these writings.

>>18248639
>James, the brother of Jesus.
Half-brother you mean?

>>18248657
The virgin birth is a later christian myth.