>>24832863
truth is in there but shit is piled on top of it

>>24832863
It’s true but what do you think?

>>24832879
A variation of what

>>24832874 said.

I believe Heaven and Hell are Earthly states of being and sinning corrupts your Earthly body. I think the Old Testament is myth, nothing more. I think historical Jesus taught truth, but it was possibly muddied and changed by people claiming they knew exactly what he was saying because they wanted some kind of apocalyptic revenge against Rome after he died and nothing happened.

The belief that the afterlife is a weird new Earth where you won’t care if your loved ones are in Hell because God brainwashes you is horrible, and the idea that man is born evil is horrible.

God is dead, and we killed him.

>>24832874
How do you sift the truth from the falsehood?

>>24832895
Bohoo this is so horrible because is say so

>>24832898
Much of what is said in the Bible would not have been LITERALLY what Jesus said word for word. Decades later and written in Greek. Also the Old Testament is like 99% made up, and much of the fulfillment of prophecy is based off made up events.

Paul shaped the Church more than Jesus himself ever did, he shaped the legalistics and such, and even had disagreements with Jesus’ followers on stuff like circumcision. The historical Jesus was a rabbi who preached imminent apocalypse on Rome, and I suspect that when he died and Rom still stood, his followers tried to make sense of it by crafting a triumphant return story.

>>24832902
And it’s good because…you say so? I’d rather not be heaven if my family isn’t there. What was it Moses said? “Blot me from your book”?

>>24832922
>. Also the Old Testament is like 99% made up,
The OT is a history book more accurate than most.

it honestly has no real relation to the NT.

>>24832863
there are too much undignified details for the new testament to have a personal motive. that's what differentiates gnostic apocrypha from canon, in the "Gospel of Peter" there are roman officials somehow camping outside the tomb who witness the dramatic opening after the resurrection by giant Jesus, in actual gospels those were women who nobody took seriously at the time and the whole scene is anticlimatic to the rest. the disciples and other followers are portrayed as oblivious and mistaken in many places, not so much intent to elevate their authority in the gospels.

>>24832898
>How do you sift the truth from the falsehood?
That's the tricky part, first of all you need to figure out what was actually said and not invented by translators, then you need to figure out what was added and what might have been removed.
then with what's left you need to find corroborating sources.

>>24832925
Ah yes Adam and Eve and Noah were historical figures

>>24832926
Paul and the gospel writers all absolutely had personal motive entrenched in each work, though I don’t think it was evil. It was meant to convince a people that lost their savior that Rome wasn’t actually falling to the messiah any time soon.

Revelation is basically a fantasy story about Rome being wiped off the face of the Earth.

>>24832933
Convince a people that lost their savior that they’d be ok and Rome*** typo whoops

>>24832933
>Ah yes Adam and Eve and Noah were historical figures
They were, but you have to see what's actually written not what you think. Because the popular surface level interpretation is too easy to dismiss.
Adam and eve would have been bioenginered servants tending the gan e'dan.

>>24832943
Welp. I’m done responding to you, schizoanon

>>24832947
Why are you so hostile to the idea that the bible is a history book?

>>24832953
You just said the word bioengineered in the same sentence as Adam and Eve

>>24832956
Yes, read what is actually written.

>>24832962
Schizo ruined the thread

>>24832922
>The historical Jesus was a rabbi who preached imminent apocalypse on Rome, and I suspect that when he died and Rom still stood, his followers tried to make sense of it by crafting a triumphant return story.
You have zero evidence of that

>>24832863
Judging by the fact all 4 gospels convey conflicting information im betting on the latter

>>24834416
And where’s the evidence he ressurected and appeared to Paul? Where’s the evidence it’s all not made up?

>>24834434
The burden of proof is yours. I said nothing about Paul.

Please show me the evidence for

>The historical Jesus was a rabbi who preached imminent apocalypse on Rome, and I suspect that when he died and Rom still stood, his followers tried to make sense of it by crafting a triumphant return

>>24834478
Notice how I said “I suspect”, I never said an absolute claim. My notion comes from the idea that Jesus preached an imminent end to the world under Roman rule, with a new kingdom on earth being created with him as the Jewish Messiah. This is the widely held picture of the historical Jesus.

The Bible does make an absolute claim about the resurrection. So where is the evidence of The Bibles claim?

>>24832863
none of this is true, although there is still some truth in all of it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MPHyR92MQic

>>24834527
>My notion comes from the idea that Jesus preached an imminent end to the world under Roman rule, with a new kingdom on earth being created with him as the Jewish Messiah.
You have zero evidence of this.

>>24834545
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-jesus-apocalyptic-teachings-were-changed-even-in-the-nt/

>Jewish apocalypticism was widespread in Jesus’ day: it was a view held by the Pharisees, the Essenes (including the authors and users of the Dead Sea Scrolls), authors of books such as 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, various “prophets” we know about (named and unnamed), John the Baptist, and many, many others. These Jews believed the world was controlled for now by forces of evil, but God was soon to re-assert his authority by bringing in a day of judgment in which all that was evil would be destroyed.
>It was common among these groups to think this was all going to happen very soon: these are the end times according to both the Essenes and the pre-Christian Paul; the end is coming right away according to John the Baptist (Luke 3:9); it will happen within his own generation according to Jesus (Mark 9:1; 13:30). Why soon? Because the world has gotten as bad as it can get and it can’t last much longer. God will intervene soon. If you are suffering for siding with God: hold on! It won’t be long! Soon you will be vindicated and rewarded.
>Jesus taught this. His followers believed it. The Son of Man was to arrive at any time.

You could have just googled this for yourself

>>24834558
You are just parrotting a theory without evidence.
Where is the evidence that
>Jesus preached an imminent end to the world under Roman rule, with a new kingdom on earth being created with him as the Jewish Messiah.

You quoted the Gospels. If you read the Gospels Jesus very much claimed his kingdom is not of his Earth and that the point was not to liberate from Roman rule but from sin.

Are you the one who is spamming this board with this Ehrman nonsense about Biblical authorship thinking you just found the light and are so above the other anons here?

>>24834569
Let me hop in my time machine you fucking retard. I ask again where’s the evidence of Paul not making everything up?

>>24834578
Who said anything about Paul?
You argued putting on airs of someone who knows more than everyone

>Jesus preached an imminent end to the world under Roman rule, with a new kingdom on earth being created with him as the Jewish Messiah.

But where is the evidence?

>>24834587
It’s understandable that you can’t provide evidence yourself. I’ll simplify it for you:

I wasn’t making a truth claim, I merely said “I suspect”. I suspect this based on what modern scholarship agrees about Jesus; that he was a rabbi who taught about the son of Man, and the imminent apocalyptic end of the modern world.

I never said whether it was true, or factual, only I suspect it based on learning about the historical Jesus.

I’ll ask instead, what do you think the historical Jesus was preaching about, if not the Son of Man and the end times being close? I’d love actual evidence to learn from.

>>24834599
>modern scholarship
>learning about the historical Jesus.
But where is the evidence?
Do they have a treasure trove of documents that early Christians didn't have? Do they have the writings of the Sanhedrin (and I would even call their accusations in question)? Do they have the legal proceedings of Pilate, with a written testimonial of Jesus?

Or are they just playing around without evidence and you are attracted by words such as "modern Academia" and "consensus"?

>>24834609
Here’s a legitimately good video talking about it, that’s actually fair to the spiritual Jesus. https://youtu.be/82vxOBbYSzk

I ask again, what do you think the actual person of Jesus was preaching, if not the things I stated?

>>24834612
Use your own words.

Where is the evidence for those claims? What kind of data do they have that allows them to (2,000 years later) claim what someone said is at odds with what his followers believed? Do they have documents for that? Or is it just guesswork?

>but my modern scholar consensus
Maslow's theory was mainstream psychology consensus in the same period this kind of thing was being pushed. And psychology is far superior to this kind of biblical studies even if Maslow took things out of his ass.

how the fuck does a layman even get into Christianity? Everywhere I look there's someone saying someone else is wrong about something

>>24834628
Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger wrote a series of books called "Jesus of Nazareth". It is not the kind of theology I like, but I recognize it is a pretty great introduction to Christianity.

>>24834625
This is circular. I can’t “use my own words” any more than I have. You’ve also been ducking and dodging the question I relayed back to you. So one last time…

Let’s suppose I and every single scholar is wrong; teach me, what do you believe Jesus was preaching to fellow Jews about 2000 years ago?

Neo rabs crushed by Pauline revelations.

>>24834633
>I and every single scholar is wrong
I think you are overrating a fair bit the popularity of your theory.

But the biggest point is: your theory just doesn't have any historical support. It doesn't have any documental support. It is just fashionable nonsense. It plays around with the Gospels in order to pretend Jesus had the opposite message that he is portrayed as having in the same Gospels. But evidence for that? Zero. Just being contrarian for being contrarian's sake. Novelty above truth.

This discipline is a joke

>>24834653
I wonder if historians in the future will say the same thing about Karl Marx.
>Karl Marx was actually a free market capitalist who defended private property. His followers actually changed his message after Marx' German Libertarian Party lost the power struggle.

>>24834653
So what evidence do you have then? I’m genuinely curious

>>24834659
What a brain dead thing to say considering we have photograpic proof as well as records he was real. You people are deranged lmao

>>24834671
But we are discussing your theory. You came here with all the talk about "historical Jesus" and "scholar consensus". But where is this "scholar consensus" built on? Is it built on evidence? Lol

>>24832898
By communing with the Holy Spirit.

>>24834686
Are you consciously retarded? I’m saying I’m open to being wrong, now show me what evidence you have that I can correct myself with. If you have none it’s okay, just say that.

>>24834695
But we are not talking about me. We are arguing over the (lack of) evidence behind your theory. Saying things like "scholar consensus", "modern scholarship" but where is this built on?

>>24834705
Brother you have extreme autism and I’m no longer replying, if you aren’t willing to have an actual discussion there’s no point. I can only say “if I’m wrong, help me understand” so many times

>>24832922
>The historical Jesus was a rabbi who preached imminent apocalypse on Rome, and I suspect that when he died and Rom still stood, his followers tried to make sense of it by crafting a triumphant return story.
So the reports about what he preached from the Bible like the sermon on the mount and the golden rule are made up by conmen? But the story you just made up about what you assume he actually said is accurate?

>>24834710
I'm very much not an autistic and...
I did help you.

>>24832863
I believe it’s a first one and also how many people think that the Old Testament is just a myth and fiction, every day scientists and archaeologists are discovering things that relate to the Old Testament that can actually allude and even confirm the existence and accuracy of those events. As we already know, there’s one part of land near the red Sea that has been scorched into glass and that could not naturally happen. In Exodus, the path towards the Hebrews while the Red Sea was parted, was blocked by a column of fire prevent preventing the Egyptians from going after them for some time. Plus, there is also a chariot wheel found at the bottom of the red sea.

Then they found the rock that was split that once had water come from it according to the testament. There’s even possible proof of Noah’s Ark at the top of a mountain somewhere (I’m not good with memorizing locations). Even the New Testament has been verified by eye witnesses as well as some science in our modern time as well. They analyze a blood sample at cavalry a.k.a. Golgotha where Christ was crucified. They only found some of the bits in the DNA strand that comes from a mother, with one additional bit which most likely means that came from the Holy Spirit influencing genetics.

He is the way, the truth and the life. We all want to debate that Lord Jesus was a prophet, and not the son of God, when proof has been recorded, and many people nowadays have even experienced encounters with the divine.

They just don’t want to acknowledge it because many people are so set in their ways of sin. I’m not saying this to condemn or call someone out, I myself have sinned in the past.

>>24834628
Read the Bible
That's what I did for that very reason. Go to the source material and decide for yourself.
Just know that Christians are supposed to be defined by brotherly love, charity, a knowledge of their fallen nature and the subsequent knowledge that they will never be perfect, knowledge of Christ as the Son of God in flesh, knowledge that He died on the cross and took our sins upon Himself, and as well that He rose again 3 days after His death.
Now here's a real fun one for you that might get you scratching your head. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus has foreknowledge of his impending crucifixion and so kneels down to pray. He cries out to the Father, saying "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." The way I was raised and it was explained to me as a child was that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were like water, 3 forms of the same essence. Christ is of God and is God, but He also talks separately to the Father
1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
2 This same was in the beginning with God.
There's something interesting that tickles my brain that made me read the Bible myself as an adult with an open mind. I was raised Baptist Christian, but it was shoved down my throat through church on Wed/Sun and private school which had Bible class every day. If you have read it before, give it a chance as an adult. If it's your first time, feel free to read the New Testament before the Old, or vice versa, whatever you are interested in reading is what's best to begin with.
I always recommend Jesus, he's a dear friend of mine and I hope He can be to anyone else out there who may be reading this too

>>24834818
Yeah so much evidence like…hm…and..yeah…Noah’s arc was definitely real dude we all descended from Noah’s incest family for sure…

>>24834831
The Bible is inconsistent about almost everything also

>>24834726
I didn’t say conmen, I said it was them rationalizing why Jesus died and Rome won. Unless you think Revelation is literal?

>>24834856
Why does Revelation have to be either about Rome or literal? Why can't it be about things beyond what the eye can see? Isn't that the point of a holy text? If there's no further knowledge to be gained beyond the context of men from 2 millenia ago, why would it be revered as holy?
Don't make it a dichotomy, that's a bad argument. Can we as men truly come to fully understand God? No, but we can know Him

>>24834856
Revelation is not attributed to Jesus.

>>24834877
Neither is Christianity, Paul had far more influence than Jesus ever did and Jesus’ words are entirely fabricated in the Bible because the gospels were written decades later. Unless they had perfect memory we have no idea what Jesus actually said. Jesus never taught about original sin, or all of this bullshit legalistic jargon. That was Paul.

>>24834874
Because it literally is an apocalyptic text meant to give hope that early Christians would be saved one day, even though no salvation was coming. It’s a revenge fantasy for a people who needed hope. Unless you actually think there will be cities of gold in heaven, 4 horesemen, and giant scorpion people?

>>24834874
>If there's no further knowledge to be gained beyond the context of men from 2 millenia ago, why would it be revered as holy?
Because they want control, telling people they’re inherently evil and need salvation or they’re gonna burn in hell for eternity is a great sales pitch

>>24834888
>Neither is Christianity, Paul had far more influence than Jesus ever did and Jesus’ words are entirely fabricated in the Bible because the gospels were written decades later. Unless they had perfect memory we have no idea what Jesus actually said. Jesus never taught about original sin, or all of this bullshit legalistic jargon. That was Paul.

Let's unpack something here.

>Jesus’ words are entirely fabricated in the Bible because the gospels were written decades later. Unless they had perfect memory we have no idea what Jesus actually said.
Is incompatible with
>Jesus never taught about original sin, or all of this bullshit legalistic jargon.

Lol

Also
>>24834856
Of course it is an atheist who just discovered Ehrman and wants to enlighten us poor mortals.
The Gospel writers fabricated everything and don't record what Jesus said.
But "serious scholars" on the "historical Jesus" project know what Jesus said.

>>24834888
>Paul had far more influence than Jesus ever did
Evidence?

>and Jesus’ words are entirely fabricated
Evidence?

>Jesus never taught about original sin, or all of this bullshit legalistic jargon.
Evidence?

>Because it literally is an apocalyptic text meant to give hope that early Christians would be saved one day, even though no salvation was coming.
Evidence?

>>24834898
I don't think you have read the Book of Revelation.

>>24834888
>Jesus’ words are entirely fabricated in the Bible
They supposedly capture the spirit of what he said. They're a more credibly source than the story you made up based on nothing. If you want to present an alternative narrative it won't be very convincing as long as you don't understand any of the appeal, as long as you're strawmanning instead of steelmanning, as in why for example would non-Jewish Romans consider the Gospel "good news"?

>>24834888
One other thing to add
>Jesus never taught about original sin, or all of this bullshit legalistic jargon.
"Original sin" is not "legalistic"...
You lack of knowledge is pretty bad. But hey, you are the harbinger of "modern scholarship".

>>24834916
Show me one example of Jesus talking about original sin in the gospels, or talking about circumcision. We’re meant to assume the gospel waa his true words so show me right now

>>24834928
>
The Epistles
>
Do you think the gospel writers had full recall of every word Jesus said? It’s impossible otherwise
>
There’s no passage in the Bible talking about original sin. Find one for me.
>
You can’t ignore the context if Revelations and Nero’s reign unless you’re willfully ignorant

I will now accept your evidence to refute me autismanon

>>24834933
Did you?

>>24834940
Capture the spirut according to who? None of the gospel writers met him

>>24834943
Find me the passage where he talks about it

>>24834953
*of Jesus talking about original sin

Fixed the typo before you resort to calling it out like a gotcha

>>24834953
>Show me one example of Jesus talking about original sin in the gospels, or talking about circumcision. We’re meant to assume the gospel waa his true words so show me right now

You claimed
>Jesus’ words are entirely fabricated in the Bible because the gospels were written decades later. Unless they had perfect memory we have no idea what Jesus actually said.

If we accept this paragraph as true, how do you even know if Jesus said anything about Original Sin or anything else?
How can you say at the same time "we have no idea what Jesus said" and that you are sure "Jesus never said anything about Original Sin"?

You are just incompetent at basic logic.
I'm actually curious about how you are going to answer this.

>>24834966
I’m dealing with pure idiocy in this thread.

Yes I’m claiming we don’t know what Jesus literally said, but the teaching of Christianity are that his words in the gospels are his words in spirit. ITT someone just said it’s “true to the spirit of his words”. Ok so, where is his doctrine in original sin? You know, one of the main doctrines of christianity where the pope states if you don’t believe in Adam and Eve and believe in polygenesis you’re heretical? Did Jesus teach about Adam and Eve’s original sin in the gospels?

My point is that yes there’s no proof if it irl and the there’s no proof of it in the gospels. Aka no proof of it at all.

Paul added the doctrine of original sin.

I’m not sure what you’re not grasping, you seem genuinely stupid.

>>24834953
>The Epistles
This is not evidence that Paul had more influence than Jesus did. Paul even claim otherwise in the Epistles. Please provide some evidence about your claim.

>Do you think the gospel writers had full recall of every word Jesus said? It’s impossible otherwise
You claimed something far stronger. You claimed Jesus' words were entirely fabricated. I would like evidence of this.

>There’s no passage in the Bible talking about original sin. Find one for me.
But you claimed the Bible fabricated all of Jesus' quotes. Now you claim everything Jesus taught is in the Gospels? I think even modern Sola Scriptura adepts don't believe this. Surely, you have some evidence about Jesus never having taught this, since you know better than the Gospels?

>You can’t ignore the context if Revelations and Nero’s reign unless you’re willfully ignorant
You claimed
>Because it literally is an apocalyptic text meant to give hope that early Christians would be saved one day, even though no salvation was coming.
You need to provide some evidence for your claim, because this is not what Christians themselves believe.

>>24834982
>Yes I’m claiming we don’t know what Jesus literally said, but the teaching of Christianity are that his words in the gospels are his words in spirit.

That's far different from
>Jesus’ words are entirely fabricated in the Bible because the gospels were written decades later. Unless they had perfect memory we have no idea what Jesus actually said.

You just retreated from your stronger claim.

"Entirely fabricated" and "we have no idea what Jesus actually said" is far different to "his words in the gospels are his words in spirit".

>>24834987
Paul had more influence on the foundation and spread of Christianity than Jesus did. To believe otherwise is ignorant. There’s no “evidence” needed.

His words would have had to have been fabricated considering he was an orator, and none of the gospel writers met Jesus let alone eachother. No evidence needed.

See >>24834982
my point is twofold, he never spoke about it at all was my point, it was a Paul thing

If any Christians believe in revelation literally they’re retarded. Abraham and Moses weren’t real either btw

>>24834997
You have major reading comprehension issues.

Jesus’s words in the gospels are fabricated because, unless the gospel writers who never met him had some divine source beaming it into their heads, they would have to be fabricating considering Jesus and his apostles never wrote anything down concretely and the gospel writers never met Jesus.

So no, we don’t know anything Jesus ACTUALLY said, and the historical Jesus is a guess as well (I never claimed it to be true just what I looked into)

>>24834998
>Paul had more influence on the foundation and spread of Christianity than Jesus did. To believe otherwise is ignorant. There’s no “evidence” needed.
Of course there is a need for evidence, lol

>His words would have had to have been fabricated considering he was an orator, and none of the gospel writers met Jesus let alone eachother. No evidence needed.
I would like evidence for this. Both that his words were entirely fabricated and that the gospel writers have never met Jesus or each other.
I can also say that I can quote a few people I have never met with good accuracy. And that if I quote them it won't be a complete fabrication.

>>24835021
Was Jesus physically responsible for the spread of his story (ressurection) being spread across the gentile globe? Yes or no

>I would like evidence of this

No evidence I provide would suit you, you’ve been saying “evidence” for 4 hours straight. There’s no guarantee the gospel writers were even the named people who “wrote” them, let alone being eyewitness accounts

>>24835004
You are just trying to save your ego now, since you were caught in contradiction and are grasping at straws.

I have never met Milton Friedman in my life. If I quote him as saying "There is no such a thing as a free lunch", it is not a fabricated quote. It is known he has said this and I studied with people who studied with him who confirmed he said that.
If I quote him as saying "I sure hope the Denver Broncos destroy the Chicago Bears" that would be an entirely fabricated quote.

And how do you know the Gospel writers have never met him? "Because Ehrman said so" is not a proper answer, by the way. He is a couple thousands of years two young for that.

Also, if the Gospels are unreliable, your theories about a "Historical Jesus " are even more so and yet you claim with certainty that Jesus have never taught something.

>>24835044
Idk what Erhman means and you keep saying it, so I’m going to assume you’re an assblasted Christian and sill keep moving goalposts until the war of attrition ends.

> Also, if the Gospels are unreliable, your theories about a "Historical Jesus " are even more so and yet you claim with certainty that Jesus have never taught something.

I guess you missed the part where I never said this with certainty lmao>>24835004

>>24835036
>Was Jesus physically responsible for the spread of his story (ressurection) being spread across the gentile globe?
Yes. Paul would agree with me.

>No evidence I provide would suit you
Well, you need to provide evidence for your claims.

>>24835053
>Idk what Erhman means
Yes, you do >>24834558

>I guess you missed the part where I never said this with certainty lmao
You said the "historical Jesus" never taught about Original Sin. By the tone of your posts with tons of certainty.
I'm curious how you are so certain of this.

>>24832874
The church ruined Christianity for everyone

>>24835082
Ohh, I just grabbed the first result off of google, never saw him before this thread


>Because if he did we’d know about it. One would assume he followed Jewish teaching, and nowhere is original sin mentioned in Jewish teaching.

>>24832895
>the idea that man is born evil is horrible.
Fair but this is wrong. Man was born good and turned evil.

>>24835093
You claimed to know about "modern scholarship", parrots his points, quoted his blog and that you don't know him? Heh

>Because if he did we’d know about it. One would assume he followed Jewish teaching, and nowhere is original sin mentioned in Jewish teaching.
But you claimed the Gospel writers didn't meet him and even fabricated his quotes. Why are you so sure he didn't teach about original sin, just because people who you believe never met him and who fabricated his quotes didn't talk about it?
Notice that in the Gospels, it is mentioned that they didn't contain all that Jesus taught.

Diving into this reading the OP and nothing else and then leaving:

No one in that era saw things this way, no one was worried about perfect recall of the exact words Jesus said, this is modernism that Protestants get obsessed with. Oral cultures don't work that way, and their world was still effectively oral. The Bible is not a textbook or a historical record or a theology book, it's a collection of oral histories and stories written down, poetry, and letters. Thst doesn't make it less, that makes it way better. Nothing is more real than stories and poetry.

Forget what you've heard from evangelical pastors, if there is a feeling you get when you see something beautiful, that's from God. Read the Bible for it's beautiful poetry and moving letters and crazy jacked up OT stories. Real life is crazy and jacked up.

Be weird for a weird God, go Eastern Orthodox.

>>24835107
Original Sin is one of the most important aspects in Christian doctrine, to the point where the pope states you must believe Adam and Eve exist (otherwise original sin and Jesus’ sacrifice are moot).


If the gospel writers ignored this, then they’d be ignoring a major tenant of the Church.

Alongside the fact that a rabbi wouldn’t have taught original sin to Jews.

By your logic Jesus could have loved anime, but the gospel writers never talked about it. I’m gonna assume he loved Hunter X Hunter

>>24835128
I feel this is a lot better than being told the ultimate rewars is you get some new weird body on a new earth and will be happy when you watch your loved ones in hell

>>24835134
>Original Sin
Doesn't exist, invented by translators and theologians.

>>24832863
It is based on true events.

>>24835107
Anon, we are starting with your assumption that: "the Gospel writers never met Jesus, fabricated all his quotes and so we can't know what Jesus said".
If we use your assumptions, you can't claim to know what Jesus have not said.

It is even interesting where you follow the opinion that

1. Jesus was a political revolutionary who wanted to bring an Earthly Kingdom
Notice that the the Gospel writers went out of their way to say this is NOT what he said. In this case, the Gospel writers never met Jesus, fabricated all his words and this is evidence he was the Roman Che Guevara.

2. Jesus never talked about Original Sin because the Gospel writers didn't talk about it. If he did talk about it, the Gospel writers would make sure to mention it because they are very reliable and wrote everything he said
On the second point, the Gospels explicitly said they not only didn't wrote all of his teachings and even that the disciples only understood what he meant after Pentecost).

tl;dr: we got a duality here.
When it is about something you want to be true (Jesus as a political rebel), the Gospels not talking about it (or in this case saying the opposite) doesn't matter because they never met him and it is all fabricated quotes.
When it is something you don't want to be true (Original Sin), if the Gospels didn't have Jesus explicitly saying, he didn't.

>>24835134
I'm >>24835690
A second Tl;dr: This is about your views of the Gospel's reliability, not the doctrine of the Original Sin or even of Jesus as a revolutionary. The Gospels are extremely reliable or complete fabrications depending on what you want to be true at a time.

>>24835680
Like a hollywood blockbuster.
>based on a true story

>>24834632
Is it me or does that have two parts

>>24835761
Three parts. But they are easy reads.

>>24832863
>St Paul... Rome bad.. Revenge!!
what tf are you talking about?

>>24832863
Historical Jesus vs ahistorical Christ
>in perfect clarity thanks to The Holy Spirit

Christ is Love, and Christ is Mind
Brighten up our pond alight,
Where we, sneeds, dwell by night,
Half forgetting how or why
We have cometh this well of tears,
Straitjacketed into borrowed fears.
Still we hold that holy spark—
The knowing: light is born from dark.