Without being edgy, we all know for sure that the beliefs Christians hold regarding Jesus are 100% false.
So is this the most likely explanation of the actual, historical story of Jesus?
>Maria either cheats on Josef or is raped by someone other than Josef and becomes pregnant
>She makes up a false story in order to deceive Josef
>Josef, for whatever reason, goes along with it
>Jesus is born and his parents convince him he's the son of God
>he believes it and proclaims it, thus angering the Jews
>the Jews have him killed through the Romans
>we all know for sure that the beliefs Christians hold regarding Jesus are 100% false.
we all know for sure this thread will end in shitposting by both theists and atheists
>>936218
Perhaps true, but the fact that Jesus is not the son of an imnopotent deity is a fact, whether religious people like it or not. Their shitposting should not get in the way of historical discussion - I'm genuinely interested in historical Jesus.
>>936192
>we all know for sure
Speak for yourself
>>936231
>the fact that Jesus is not the son of an imnopotent deity is a fact
>>936232
Ok, then your input in this thread is not valued.
>>936241
How about you come up with some sources to back up your baseless claims you awkward autistic fuck?
>>936239
>I have no arguments so I use the fedora meme
>even though the Bible is riddled with error
ayy lmao, now sod off, I want actual discussion about historical Jesus.
>>936252
>why don't you try to prove that a guy who lived and was killed 2000 years ago is not the son of God
>a literal omnipotent deity who cares whether we fuck or not
sod off, your input is not valued
>>936231
>Perhaps true
no, it is true, it's happening right now
>>936261
Yes, sadly some people are very insecure about their fragile (incorrect) beliefs.
>>936231
>historical discussion
>throw cultural dimension out the window
>>936275
I don't care about the culture - I care about the facts.
How likely is it that Maria lied to Josef to cover up her having sex, kickstarting christianity?
>>936192
The Virgin birth is a later development, in reality Jospeh was the father.
He probably was a charismatic faith healing apocalyptic teacher with a habit of pissing off the Jewish rabbis and authorities on theological grounds, when he enters Jerusalem and causes a stir in the temple the Jewish authorities have enough and crucify him.
>>936253
>I want actual discussion about the historical Jesus
>posits a claim which is completely unsupported by evidence or by any legitimate historian, outside of baseless theories
What kind of discussion are you expecting when there's such a piss-poor effort put into the OP?
>>936192
I agree with 99% of your post, the only thing I dont is that Jesus was real, and documented, it's his powers and the 3 day respawn lagging shit that is fake
>>936192
OP, you're coming at it from completely the wrong angle. Trying to work backwards, especially starting from a point of modern social mores, is just ridiculous. There is no reason Joseph would keep the baby if he didn't think it was his, and would have turned out that slut at the first opportunity, and dumped her brat with her.
No, you need to start with what you know or can reasonably assume, and work from there.
>Joseph and Mary are both Jews
>Presumably, they follow Jewish laws and customs at least most of the time.
>Judaism has a set of laws concerning "Niddah", when a woman is menstruating and adopts a ritual uncleanliness.
>In particular, contact with the vagina from the man is forbidden until she has a chance to take a ritual bath, which she's not allowed to do until several days after the bleeding stops.
>Depending on Mary's flow, Joseph could have been kept away from that pussy for as much as half the month.
>However, he's a man, and therefore horny.
>Poopdick time is on the menu, and anal sex has been considered permissible among Jews for quite some time, as long as it's between man and wife.
>So while Mary is recovering from her period and waiting out her days until she can go to the mikveh, Joseph taps that ass.
>Some ejaculate leaks down from her ass and into her cunt, knocks her up.
>She gives birth to what we now call an Assbaby, see pic related.
>Assbaby Jesus survives, unlikely in such a time, usually quite extensive medical care is needed to keep the little shitling alive.
>He's also noticeably different, as all Anal Births are.
>People comment about how he's strange
>They wonder about God's plan for this extremely strange baby.
>This strangeness garners interest, and people start to listen to Jesus
>Eventually, it conflates with actual deification.
Tl;dr Jesus was an Assbaby. One of the first, certainly the one who made it biggest.
>>936280
>I don't care about the culture - I care about the facts.
troll harder....aside from a fairly limited archaeological record our understanding of pre-modern history is largely speculation and educated guessing.
>>936356
Yes, and I want educated guessing ITT, not buttmad christians
>>936192
The "son of God" development isn't even the original belief. The early Christians saw Jesus as an exalted being, a prophet or angel that was given special favor with God. The phrase "son of God" meant something totally different in the Roman world. There was only one man in history given that title before Jesus: Augustus.
In this case the "God" is Casear and he adopted Augustus into his family, making him the adopted son of God, a normal human that was exalted to the same rank as a God. So when early Christians give the "son of God" title to Jesus it probably meant God had adopted Jesus into his family. It didn't mean they were related.
Most likely the virgin birth was also a later development. The early Christians were all Greek speeking Jews that were reading Greek trasnltated copies of the old testament. In one of the passages discussing a prophecy it mentions the chosen one will be born to a young woman. The Greek copies had a mistranslation that changed young woman to virgin.
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan
This seems like a good place to start.
>>936330
>(googles assbabies)
stop it boner!
>>936365
>There was only one man in history given that title before Jesus: Augustus.
huh? it was fairly common ascribe divinity to powerful kings....Alexander, the Pharaohs, the Chinese Emperors, etc.
>>936287
>The Virgin birth is a later development
It was literally prophecied in Isaiah 7:14 several hundred years before Christ's birth. . .
>>936396
>I have never read Isaiah: the post
A prophecy about a pregnancy that had already happened and the birth was imminent to advertise to a nervous king that his troubles would be over soon. It in no way refers to Jesus unless you literally change the meaning of the words involved.
>>936192
I prefer to believe that the bible is mostly a book of allegories which were written by nomad religious people who were trying to keep a record of their history and beliefs and also create religious scripts. Most likely there was a messiah movement going on and this "Jesus" figure is just a fictional character which was based on the lives of different men, perhaps one more than rest who just took things too far. IRL, I refuse to discuss or talk about the subject with people who believe that there was a man who was born from a virgin who had godly powers that got kiled and resurrected, or that Moses actually cut open the sea... I know I'm not the only one.
>>936431
>"discourse is problematic"
>>936424
Nope, Jesus Christ is the only "Immanuel born of a virgin."
>>936239
>>936451
And he was conceived in the reign of Ahaz? Mary is several centuries old when she gave birth?
>>936473
There is nothing to suggest that the sign needed to take place during Ahaz's reign given that it was addressed to the "House of David" in general.
I think you'd be disappointed, OP.
Apocalyptic preachers were dime a dozen during the Second Temple/Roman occupation period. What the historical Jesus would have preached would have been quite"generic", relatively: more than likely, he would have preached for a reform of the priesthood and/or of the Jewish laws, as well as some kind of atonement for what was believed to be the impending coming of the Messiah. It is possible Jesus actually did consider himself the Messiah, albeit the Jewish-type of Messiah (which is merely an anointed human) who would overthrow the Roman rule and the corrupt collaborating priesthood.
>>936483
Other than the word for "conceived" being uttered in a past/pewter ire conjunction, and the context of "before the child can know to choose between good and evil, the two kings you have a dread of will be overthrown"
It quite literally says it will happen immediately. If you had EVER bothered to read the rest of the chapter instead of mining for quotes, you'd know this.
>>936395
It was but the exact title "son of God" was unique Agustus. You see Ceaser was assigned divinity but Augustus was adopted. So Augustus's divinity is a unique kind, divinity may be bestowed by being invited into the divine family. That is why his title is not "god" but "son of God"
This is also why Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God but to be his son.
Years later this meaning would be forgotten and Christians would change the meaning of the word "son".
Jesus like Augustus was not born a "son of God" they became one at a special moment: usually the baptism or the crufixation.
This type of idea is actually what Mathew's gospel originally was. In the oldest versions of Mathew's gospel Jesus is not called divine until his baptism and the holy spirit says to him that you are "now my son" implying he wasn't before.
>>936192
Likely a completely made up story, just like moses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
There are others.
Its just an amalgamation of jewish and other stories that over generations were fleshed out to appear as "real" history.
Add to that 2000 years of christian theocracy as the sole scribes and keepers of history, you get the false certainty that its actally historical.
It might be, but unlikely on the evidence availeable.
>>936500
Regarding your grammatical critique, God is speaking in the "prophetic perfect tense" which places future events in the past tense because of the certainty that God will bring them to pass.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_perfect_tense)
And as for the rest of your quibbles, in typical Jewish fashion you have adopted a materialistic reading of the prophecy and miss the fact that the "two kings" refer to Sin and Death.
>>936331
>I wanted historical discussion
No. You want "historical discussion" in the same way a person who makes a holocaust denial thread wants "historical discussion." They only want discussion in a context that confirms their pre-determined beliefes. Thus, all you truly want was a circle jerk about how real Jesus isn't. You knew this thread was going to end in shitposting the moment it began.
>>936489
Except that part where he said he wasn't here to overthrow the Roman's. Something a different kingdom entirely.
I'd like to pose a serious question. Disregarding the old testament, what credibility is there for the Resurrection and what are the chances of it being real.
>recently heard there were ~1400 first hand accounts of Jesus and the Resurrection.
>substantially more first hand accounts than Socrates' trial and exocution.
Any good sources on this? I'm tired of hearing biased ignorance either way.
>>936540
All you want - on the other hand - is a circlejerk about how Jesus is "real" and is actually "divine". Like he said: your input is not needed, nor even valued. You can go now.
>>936555
I don't think Jesus is the sun of God. I Just know bait when I see it.
>>936548
>Except that part where he said he wasn't here to overthrow the Roman's. Something a different kingdom entirely.
Why would you trust anything written in the Gospels as truth? The idea of a Jewish Messiah was explicitly one who would restore the sovereignty of Israel, and that would entail kicking out the Romans and taking down the collaborators (Herod, the priesthood).
>>936534
>Regarding your grammatical critique, God is speaking in the "prophetic perfect tense" which places future events in the past tense because of the certainty that God will bring them to pass.
Wrong. If that were the case, you'd have both the conception and the birth being with the same "prophetic perfect". Instead, you have a formation of past conception, and regular future birth, i.e. "She is pregnant right now"
>And as for the rest of your quibbles, in typical Jewish fashion you have adopted a materialistic reading of the prophecy and miss the fact that the "two kings" refer to Sin and Death.
>unless you literally change the meaning of the words involved.
In your typical Christian manner, you just make shit up when the Bible doesn't say what you want it to. But don't feel bad, it's an old, old tradition, going back at the very least to Matthew, who just made up a prophecy to get his whole Nazarene bullshit in 2:23.
>>936562
This is why my second question is relevant.
Christ is supposed to have rebuked his followers when they brought up your very point. Christ's response was something like, "The promised land is not of your realm."
His point was that the prophecy was being misinterpreted, and he was the instrument of eternal (after death) salvation.
Of course, none of this matters of he didn't say that. If he did, it still doesn't matter of he never actually rose from the dead.
So, is there any evidence of that actually happening or can I disregard the entire thing as Jewish propaganda turned silly?
>>936562
Because they contain so many errors, and so many things that make them look stupid, they have to be honest! How else can you explain it? Don't you know, a bunch of eyewitnesses giving different and nonsensical stories only proves that they're not collaborating.
>>936585
It was actually more like Christian propaganda turned silly.
The original followers of Jesus - the Ebionites - were even led by the brother of Jesus, James. However, they became embroiled in conflict with Paul of Tarsus in Asia minor(a neurotic homosexual who had never met Jesus but became very possessive).
The Ebionites held Jesus to be a prophet: they did not consider him to be God. However, they were destroyed during the Jewish Revolts, and Paul was free to preach his homosexuality-induced neurotic ravings about Jesus = God and other things which the Ebionites had held as blasphemous.
>>936582
>If that were the case, you'd have both the conception and the birth being with the same "prophetic perfect".
If you had actually bothered to read the link I gave you, you would understand why your critique holds no water. I'll quote the relevant section for you:
>The perfect serves to express actions, events, or states, which the speaker wishes to represent from the point of view of completion, whether they belong to a determinate past time, or extend into the present, or while still future, are pictured as in their completed state.
>extend into the present
Also regarding Matthew 2:23, as I'm sure you know being called a "a Nazarene" was an insult and this fulfills another prophecy from Isaiah that the Messiah would "be despised" by mankind.
>>936620
Okay, I am going to have to look into this. Any good sources? I've never heard this before.
>>936588
Was this really the way the bible canon was formed? This is how the #? Accounts were compared?
I'm sorry I'm asking so many questions, but I've never been anywhere where these questions were answered.
>I'm sorry, I'm American. We don't know anything about truth or history. Or real science. Or logic.
>Implying most first world countries don't have the same problem.
>I'm ignant
>>936644
Just look up the Ebionites on Wikipedia, Anon.
>>936639
>The perfect serves to express actions, events, or states, which the speaker wishes to represent from the point of view of completion, whether they belong to a determinate past time, or extend into the present, or while still future, are pictured as in their completed state.
Do you have a reading problem, or a thinking problem? If, as you claim, this is actually prophesizing the birth of Jesus, then both the conception and the birth are future events that can be stated as already having "happened" since the knowledge is certain. There would be no need to differentiate grammatically between the insemination and the birth.
That's not how it's written, ergo, there is a reason to draw the distinction. Ergo, it's not talking about Jesus, but rather someone a bit closer chronologically to Isaiah.
>Also regarding Matthew 2:23, as I'm sure you know being called a "a Nazarene" was an insult
It is? First I've heard of it.
> was an insult and this fulfills another prophecy from Isaiah that the Messiah would "be despised" by mankind.
You mean the one addressed to the city of Zion? The one talking about crushing the servant's body with disease? The one which talks about his descendants living on after he died?
>unless you literally change the meaning of the words involved.
>>936644
https://youtu.be/DqejESIO7sc
>>936644
>Was this really the way the bible canon was formed? This is how the #? Accounts were compared?
I was being sarcastic in post >>936588
It's almost certain that none of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, and of the 4, Matthew's probably the only one who was even a native Judean, and even that's iffy.
More likely is that you had some either nexus figure, a historical Jesus, or less likely, that "Jesus" was a composite character of some sort. Either way, you've got a religious community focused around a set of millenarian beliefs, that the World Is Ending Soon. They cloister themselves, they pray, they purify their bodies and souls, and they await the end and final judgment. When that doesn't happen, you have a round of mutation, and since the long term is actually starting to seem relevant, you start writing stuff down.
But that's decades after the original "Jesus" was running around preaching, and pretty much everyone who was around with him is either dead or scattered, especially in the wake of the Roman invasion in 66. So you have a bunch of secondhand accounts, people writing down a biography of the ministry based around old stories and what that one guy remembered from a sermon he listened to 30-35 years ago. The Greek worshipers, being the most literate and probably wealthy of the bunch, predominated the effort, but this costs a lot of the firsthand authenticity, as they didn't know the tiny niggling right details to get life in Iudea quite right.
>>936649
>If, as you claim, this is actually prophesizing the birth of Jesus, then both the conception and the birth are future events that can be stated as already having "happened" since the knowledge is certain. There would be no need to differentiate grammatically between the insemination and the birth.
The point is that the prophetic perfect can be used both for the past and present tenses. If your interpretation is correct, which virgin gave birth to an Immanuel during Ahaz's reign?
>First I've heard of it
Then let me educate you. Nazareth housed a Roman garrison and therefore was despised by Jews.
>You mean the one addressed to the city of Zion?
I mean Isaiah 53:3
>>936192
>So is this the most likely explanation of the actual, historical story of Jesus?
No. Most likely he was just another child born to two Jewish parents in the Roman Empire. He started preaching, got in trouble, and was executed for his troubles, but his followers being whipped into an end times frenzy began experiencing mass hysteria that over the next two generations created legends about his resurrection, his true divinity, and the prophecies and mystical nature of his birth.
Those that were collected by the communities that would form the early church became the gospel, the rest turned into gnostic myth.
>>936639
>Also regarding Matthew 2:23, as I'm sure you know being called a "a Nazarene" was an insult
You know a Nazarene was a man that took certain religious vows. Amoung those he is not allowed to drink wine or be near dead bodies. Jesus's miracles involve him doing exactly this.
Calling Jesus a Nazerine was a result of ignorant Jews thinking the word meant "one from Nazeroth"
Honestly New Testament "prophecies" are pretty hard proof that the people writing them sucked at reading.
>>936687
> If your interpretation is correct, which virgin gave birth to an Immanuel during Ahaz's reign?
First
>Implying ×¢Ö·×Ö°×Öø× means virgin
Secondly, the question isn't that important. Our Immanuel isn't actually prophesized as doing anything. Just that before he's old enough to understand the difference between good and evil, Ahaz's rivals will be overthrown. Some of the manuscripts give ×ק×Ø××Ŗ×, which would imply that the woman is Isaiah's wife or concubine though.
>Then let me educate you. Nazareth housed a Roman garrison and therefore was despised by Jews.
[citation needed]
On both counts, that there was a garrison, and that presence of such would be cause for despite. I mean, Jerusalem had a Roman garrison too, did Jerusalemite become an insult as well?
>I mean Isaiah 53:3
Yes, I know you did. I also know, once again, that you didn't read the context of the prophecy. Start a chapter back, and you'll see the prophet metaphorically addressiong Zion, which continues on for a bit of a rambling spell.
>>936797
Not him, but that's a Nazirite, not a Nazerene. Plus, there's no Christian tradition I'm aware of that ever claimed that Jesus was a Nazirite; it would also cut against the grain of most Christian theology, Nazirites were supposed to bring a sin offering when they were done (unless you swore for life, which doesn't seem to be Jesus's shtick, what with as you said before, him drinking and touching dead bodies), and they try to play up him as being sinless.
Also, you forgot the third prong, Nazirites weren't supposed to cut their hair either.
>>936192
>for sure that the beliefs Christians hold regarding Jesus are 100% false.
>Christians believe Jesus existed
>ergo Jesus does not exist
>makes thread about the historical Jesus
pic related
I would recommend Albert Schweitzers "quest for the historical Jesus". It's worth mentioning that our progeny will look at these "edgelords" and laugh with pity and moderate reverence, The declaration "man can know all by rational means" synonymous with positivism is slowly being undermined with every scientific advancement.
>>936318
no there is no accounts of jesus from the time he was alive of even existing everything saying jesus was real came years after him being dead so no there are no accounts of jesus being real
>>936192
First make the argument for a historical Jesus, don't just assume he existed for convenience.
>>936799
>First
Go on...
>Implying ×¢Ö·×Ö°×Öø× means virgin
>Definition
>a young woman, a virgin
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm
>the question isn't that important
The identity of the Messiah is very important...
>Just that before he's old enough to understand the difference between good and evil, Ahaz's rivals will be overthrownb
But who was he then?
>Jerusalem had a Roman garrison too, did Jerusalemite become an insult as well?
It has been (Ez 21:2:) and furthermore Nazareth is an irrelevant town in the boonies which is why being associated was an insult.
>you'll see the prophet metaphorically addressiong Zion
And prophesying the arrival of the King of Zion (aka Jesus the Anointed One aka Son of God)
>>936259
I love the passion of Christ its just so silly
God sends himself down to earth as his son to commit suicide to stop himself doing what he did before in heaven
>>936868
>a young woman
If you were intellectually honest, you'd also mention that ××Ŗ××× is the word more closely associated with virginity.
>The identity of the Messiah is very important...
Arguing from your conclusion, aren't you? If one rejects the notion that the Immanuel is the Messiah, then no, you can't raise that point. And don't forget, 7:16 has the victory before Immanuel does anything.
>But who was he then?
An unimportant child. The point is that Ahaz's worries will soon be over, before a child who will be born any day now (since the mother is already pregnant) is old enough to think clearly, he'll be fine.
>It has been (Ez 21:2:) and furthermore Nazareth is an irrelevant town in the boonies which is why being associated was an insult.
You still haven't shown that there was a Roman garrison in Nazareth, that the said garrison was a cause for shame, are moving the goalposts to it being some place in the boonies, and are topping it all off with a completely irrelevant passage in Ezekiel where "Son of Man" is referring to Ezekiel himself.
>And prophesying the arrival of the King of Zion (aka Jesus the Anointed One aka Son of God)
It's become increasingly clear that you're not interested in actually reading the verses in question. Nothing in there prophesizes the arrival of a messiah figure. The sojourn to Egypt and the being sold into slavery are metaphorical allusions to either Joseph or Israel itself in bondage. It's saying that even as those trials ended, so to will those now.
>>936941
>you'd also mention that ××Ŗ××× is the word more closely associated with virginity.
There's not different degrees of virgindom; it's a binary set up. You are either a virgin or you're not and ×¢Ö·×Ö°×Öø× means virgin.
>If one rejects the notion that the Immanuel is the Messiah,
The Messiah is God with us.
>An unimportant child.
GOD WITH US is not "unimportant."
>topping it all off with a completely irrelevant passage in Ezekiel where "Son of Man" is referring to Ezekiel himself.
The point is that being associated with Jerusalem was a cause for shame.
>Nothing in there prophesizes the arrival of a messiah figure.
>5 But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed.
>6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
- Isaiah 53:5-6
>with His stripes we are healed.
>the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
>>936970
>There's not different degrees of virgindom; it's a binary set up. You are either a virgin or you're not and ×¢Ö·×Ö°×Öø× means virgin.
Da fuck? No, ×¢Ö·×Ö°×Öø× means young woman, and the virgin connotation only comes up because of the assumption that a young woman is a virgin. ××Ŗ××× is the word with the actual denotation of virginity, and it's not used here.
>The Messiah is God with us.
It's a name you fool. Pretty much every old Judean name had "God" worked in somewhere. Daniel, God judges, Yehoshua, God saves, Sameul, God names, etc.
>The point is that being associated with Jerusalem was a cause for shame.
You definitely haven't been reading the Bible.
>5 But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed.
>6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
And then he was "crushed with disease" in 3, saw his seed thrive in 10, and shared his grave with the wicked in 9. I'm very well aware of what the verses say. The suffering servant is a continued digression on the city of Jerusalem/Zion itself, not a person, and if it was, it still doesn't match up with Jesus.
Do yourself a favor. Go out, get an Artscroll Chumash, and go through the Rashi commentary on each verse. It will really, really help you understand what the words mean, and who is addressing whom.
>>936867
So no one's gonna do this?
>>936867
>BUT WITHOUT A GUY NAMED JESUS HOW DO PEOPLE START WORSHIPPING A GUY NAMED JESUS XDXDXDXD
>>937011
He was a celestial being in pre-Gospel Christianity.
>>936993
>the assumption that a young woman is a virgin
Precisely. You wouldn't call Immanuel's mother a ×¢Ö·×Ö°×Öø× if she wasn't a virgin, you would call her a ××Ö¹× Öø×.
>It's a name you fool.
If I am a fool you drove me to it and and names denote purpose; Jesus is God with us.
>You definitely haven't been reading the Bible.
And the LORD said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
- Jeremiah 11:9
>The suffering servant is a continued digression on the city of Jerusalem/Zion itself,
No, the suffering servant is the one who bears the sins of the world.
>it still doesn't match up with Jesus.
>he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
This is Jesus of Nazareth.
>Go out, get an Artscroll Chumash, and go through the Rashi commentary on each verse.
You are easily persuaded by scribes.
>>937023
I'm not very familiar with Pliny's reference but Josephus and Tacticus's references to Christ have been shown to be interpolations.
>>937023
Josephus' accounts were forged. Pliny the Younger said nothing about Christ aside from the fact that Christians worshiped him. All Tacitus proves is that there were Christians who believed in a historical Christ. The gospels are just unreliable.
>>937023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e7uhaed594
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm
See link related, those interested. A nice presentation of what many have already suspected: the split between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James and Peter the Apostle, who believed Paul of Tarsus was insane.
>>937023
>Josephus
There exists two statements concerning Jesus in the writings of Josephus. The first statement is a small sentence stating something to the effect of "a troublemaker named Yeshua was put to death", and nothing more. The second statement was found to be an interpolation by later Christian scribes, and even reading it by itself, it is obvious it is an insertion, since it goes on to praise Jesus, in contrast to Josephus' detached and dispassionate style.
>Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger makes no reference to Jesus Christ: he merely asks the Emperor on how to deal with Christians.
>Tacitus
Like Pliny, Tacitus merely mentions that some Christians in Rome venerate a so-called "Chrestos" who was supposedly killed by Pilate. He merely describes what they believe: in no way does this imply it is real, or that he even believes it.
Stupid Christcuck - how many times does one have to repeat it?
>>937110
Actually one of the statements is about James the brother of Jesus. The other one is about a wise man named Jesus.
>>937117
It doesn't make sense for Josephus to call James the brother of the Messiah as Josephus was not christian and he was writing to a roman audience that wouldn't understand the term. additionally there's another Jesus in that passage that is mention that isn't Jesus of Nazareth. it makes more sense for that James mention to be the brother of that Jesus which was later changed by christian scribes
>>937124
>mentioned
>>937124
Called the Christ it said, not the Messiah.
>>937117
Actually, the reference to the historical Jesus occurs in the James passage: the Jesus passage is an interpolation. Simply look at the style in which it is written: the passages are very detached, an d suddenly, upon reaching the famed Jesus passage, we have Josephus exalting this Jesus individual immensely ("so wise, that he can barely be called a man...", "[the assertion] that he was the Christ").
Funny that Josephus should assert Jesus as 'THE Christ', when in the James passage, he mentions that "they called him Christ" as a simple fact, without attaching any emotion to it.
>>937128
my bad, i don't have the passage in front of me. my argument still applies though
>>937132
the same wording used in the James passage for called the christ is used in the gospels
>>936192
100%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr5fCCcWRJ4
>>937150
>using rationalwiki as a fucking reliable source
Mate.
>>936296
There are no first hand accounts from Jesus sadly. I want to pick into his mindset and life.
>>937160
It has citations, which is more than I can say for you,"mate."
>>937169
So does conservapedia, you fucking plonker.
>>937150
>rational wiki
???
>>937171
Then what do you consider a good source? You fucking jit.
>>937180
almost anything else? besides that just replying to a bunch of posts with just a link and nothing to say about it is kinda annoying
>>937051
Its the very body of ancient writings, both by Christians and other occasional mentions, that make the myth theory untenable.
>>937189
That's so they could learn how to refute the fucking "evidence" properly. You didn't even read it, I can tell, so shut your ass up.
>>937192
Sure thing, whatever you say, buddy. The Christians didn't control information in the middle ages to see what survived and what didn't.
>>937193
for fucks sake just summarize the point. i read part of the article and didn't see anything counter to the posts it was linked to, it seemed to smugly agree
>>937197
>middle ages
None of the evidense for Jesus is from this time. Do you even know what centuary Jesus was from?
>see what survived and what didn't.
Is this basically saying that no amount of evidense will ever count for anything? What do you want man?
>>937197
Of course they did how is that even an argument? they destroyed a lot of "heretical" Christian sources too. we only have a fraction of early Christian writing, and of course the only reason we have that is that Christians preserved so much of it.
You realize every piece written within living memory of his life makes it More likely he existed yes?
>>937207
I want fucking Christians to stop bullshitting themselves like they didn't tilt this shit in their favor. That's what I want. I want REAL evidence, nigger, not what you deem as evidence without looking at the arguments on both sides for it.
>>937207
you do realize the documents from that period didn't survive for the most part and we only know about them from copies made later on by christian scribes, right?
>>937213
do you think all the secular scholars who advance the current picture of the historical Jesus are secret Christians?
>>937220
You do realize their work is severely hindered by Medieval Christians who selectively preserved and actively destroyed only that which ensured that which appealed to their sense of aesthetics (and which would preserve their power) would be all to survive?
>>937213
Well what's your idea of real evidence?
You've got multiple documents from many people all within a short time after his death, many written by people that were not in contact with each other.
>>937234
and arguments have already been made in this thread for why the passages aren't credible
>>937219
And you do know they are dated to being 50-110 years after Jesus's life right? Dates that are argued upon by secular scholars even.
You do know with pretty much any document from this long ago you will not have the origenal copy, just copies.
>>937228
And when we dig up these works they try to destroy they also confirm Jesus was historical person and confirm a number of his events (his ministry, his death, the names of hist apostles and his family). See the Nag Hammidi library.
It sounds like you've essentially decided for yourself Jesus never existed. If a document mentions him than it's made up, so nothing can ever convince you.
>>937225
>Don't try to act like the evidence isn't flimsy or even questionable.
Considering he was, during his life an obsure preacher on the edge of the roman empire who never wrote his teachings down, we have a surprising amount of evidence, There is no reason to think there would be any evidence outside of his cult. What records were kept in that era were mostly destroyed long long ago.
>No, but they have an agenda to keep the money flowing given to them by Christians.
Yeah that big historical Jesus money. Christians love being told their savior was one of many Jewish preachers who would probably hate their modern interpretation of his work.
Christians have lots of Christian histories and other nonsense they can spend their money on
>>937239
He doesn't care nor wants to listen.
>>937234
>Christians didn't exist to spread their bullshit where ever they could
There's even evidence of early Christian sects believing in a celestial Jesus and were arguing with sects that historicized Jesus.
>>937243
>Christians love being told their savior was one of many Jewish preachers who would probably hate their modern interpretation of his work
Better that than he never existed in the first place.
>>937241
I'm not arguing agains them being made in that time period, I'm just pointing out we don't have early copies so we should account for the biases of christian scribes who were known to add to documents when they copied them. that Josephus's reference to Jesus is a later interpolation is extremely obvious for one. I don't think it is unreasonable to recognize that interpolations could be in the documents we have
>>937239
No historian in the world would take the stance Jesus never existed as a character.
I haven't even seen a proper argument for it. How is that while Paul is making up the existence of Jesus in the year 50 and making rival churchs that he is incompetation with the writers of Thomas are in an entirly different region and just happen to make up the same character with the same death, the same names of his disciples, the same name of his parents.
Why would they make up a story about how James and Paul disagree about how the church should be run. If you want to make a fake God to legimize a church you wouldn't write that it's ambigious how the church should be organized? Why would you write that the hero of your story was betrayed by his friends and killed by his enemies?
>>937253
>Better that than he never existed in the first place.
and for non-Christians it would be better than he didn't, but the theory is not popular among non-Christan academics either.
>>937253
>There's even evidence of early Christian sects believing in a celestial Jesus and were arguing with sects that historicized Jesus.
And yet all of these confirm basic aspects of his life. His baptism, his crucifixion, the names of his apostles, the name of his family.
Even the people that believed in a totally celestial Jesus thought he had a body of some kind and walked around, they may have thought his body was just a shell or an illusion. The fact that rival sects that didn't meet until after they had written their stories beleive a guy named Jesus was walking around probably means it was true. Whether he did miracles is up for debate.
>>937259
Paul never said anything about disciples.
>>937256
We do have very early copies of some of these documents and indeed there are differences, but not the smoking gun your thinking of.
second, although not perfect there are textual techniques which let us say a passage was likely written by a different author
>>937259
first off you have just discounted all the arguments presented without addressing them. second of all you are misrepresenting the jesus myth position. it doesn't state that Paul and the other apostles were claiming a recent human jesus who didn't exist. the claim is that Paul and the other first apostles didn't believe that jesus was a man but a celestial being. yes paul's jesus was crucified but in the Ascension of Isaiah, another early christian documents, Jesus is crucified by demons in the lower heavens. therefore it is possible to have a crucified christ while not believing that he ever came to earth and had a ministry
>>937274
He descriebs himself debating with them over doctrine. He even defends himself from accusations he is not a "real apostle".
Why the fuck would Paul make up disciples and than say these made up people are calling him a phoney? This is completely counter-intuitive to making up a story for your own advantage. Furthermore he seems to give the dsciples the exact same names and roles as the heretical documents which were written in completly different parts of the world.
It's almost like the documents are talking about real people!
>>937266
That's because they minimize Jesus and can't even agree on what he did in his life or what he did to get crucified or how he was a person. All these people have different views of Jesus, and you say this person existed? We don't have that for any other historical person. Not Zoroaster, not even Buddha.
>>937290
Paul was talking about apostles, not disciples, he never mentions anything about disciples in his authentic letters.
>>937288
All of the understandings of Christ have him spending at least some time on earth. To my knowledge none make him completely transcendent. This means there probably was a guy walking around that was called Jesus, he probably did have some disciples, and probably got killed in a trial that made a lot of people very shocked.
Hey guys I got a good joke
Whats the difference between Charlie Manson and Jesus?
2000 years
>>937291
If you think we have a clear picture of the life of every historical person your not very familiar with academic history. Sometimes we have nothing more than "They probably existed" with Jesus we have a little bit more, but not alot so there is a little room for speculation into his life
>>937300
Then why does the crucifixion narrative mirror the Yom Kippur ritual sacrifice?
>>937303
Now there's a joke that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.
>>937290
Paul didn't make up disciples, he never even mentions disciples. he speaks of apostles that jesus revealed himself to before him though. but Paul makes no distinction between these apostles having jesus revealed to them and Paul's own vision of christ
>>937300
Also, what did Paul say about Jesus' time on Earth? Absolutely nothing.
>>937300
>All of the understandings of Christ have him spending at least some time on earth.
how can you say this when you are responding to a post where I mentioned the Ascension of Isaiah which does not have Jesus having an earthly crucifixion but one in the heavens?
>>936548
I mean it's not hard toooo far-fetched to imagine a man surviving crucifixion if he faked his death or fell into a coma while on the cross and woke up days later.
I figure something strange happened that could've been perceived as a miracle. People like Mohammed had to perform astounding feats to be regarded as a prophet, and I can't imagine Jesus would've gained such a devoted following without something phenomenal occurring.
testin
My idea of the historical Jesus is something like this: Maria gets porked by some random guy (because Josef was infertile) and out of fear of her husband she tells him that she was actually literally impregnated by GOD, and he buys it (cuck'd), anyway, whether or not he believed her he let Jesus live and helped raise him to adolescent age. So i'm not sure if Jesus actually knew that his mom said he was the son of God, but he probably knew it. Then Jesus obviously became interested in theology for some reason (either because he had a conviction that he was the son of god (more likely) or just out of a genuine interest (less likely) and then went and sat with the priests in the temple. I think this is the most overlooked and important tidbit we have about Jesus in general. When he sat in the temple with the old guys he probably developed his entire philosophy there.
Okay after all that "you're the son of God" stuff, combined with listening to crazy old men, now we have pretty weird guy on a mission. He wants to teach everyone about his God-tier philosophy and basically convince the entire world that he is really important. He only manages to attract 12 disciples before he gets BTFO by the jews (who didn't like him upsetting the status quo) but as it turns out, crucifying their dear leader was a shit move and because of that people get super upset and butthurt, even people who gave 0 fucks about this jesus guy suddenly start caring because "He died for muh sins" and all that sympathy nonsense, and because of this he literally started a world-wide cult after his death and post-humously achieved his goal of becoming the most revered son-of-a-bitch ever, despite not actually achieving anything of note.
Also, all the "miracles", like healing by touch and resurrecting dead people and conjuring food and stuff is clearly fan-fiction which was written later.
>>937556
It sure would be nice if we referenced actually scholarly work instead of pulling shit out of your ass.
>>937340
My point is they all agree he spent SOME time on earth, maybe not all his time. The Gnostic gospels have him traveling between our world and a spirit realm. The point is (to my knowledge) no form of Christianity says he spent 100% of his time off the earth.
This leads to the idea that the myths were most likely based on a real person. I think I also have an answer for why he is so constiantly a spirit walker.
In all traditions Jesus stresses that his "kingdom" is not of this world. The orthodox writings mention this, Thomas makes it even more explicit: in that one Jesus's portrays the spirit world as more real, more relevent to your day to day life than the real world. Furthermore the kingdom is not promised in the future but already exists, you just need to learn to see it.
I'm going to borrow Nietzsche's interpretation of historical Jesus. Historical Jesus believed in a world of "inner light", the real world is only a metaphor. The reason Jesus appears as a celestial person is because that's how the historical Jesus saw himself. For him entering the celestial world was simply a matter of realizing you were already living in it.
I'll quote Thomas to affirm this
Jesus says "When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
>>937575
>pulling shit out of your ass.
I thought that's was this thread was all about?
>>937575
Who are you to tell him not to pull his own shit out of his own ass?!
>>937586
Everything I have said is a conclusion drawn from at least one document. That's the only way you will ever know the historical Jesus, you need to grab something that was written about him and read between the lines.
Any examination of history that doesn't start with such documents is basically DUDE WHAT IF
>>937598
your's is only a step above what he was doing
>>937575
he doesn't spend any time on earth in the Ascension of Isaiah. He's crucified in the lower heavens, dies, resurrects and returns to the upper heavens to be glorified. unless you want to count Sheol as time on earth, he spends no time in an earth in the document. there's a good case for Mark originally being an allegory. jesus and barnabas mirror the passover sacrifice of one lamb and the release of another. what holiday does jesus's death occur on? Passover
>>936291
That's a later developer on the part of Matthew/Luke (or someone) himself. In a bid to convert Jews to the religion of Christianity they scoured the Old Testament for messianic prophecies and then wrote down that Jesus fulfilled them, in reality they were merely quote mining and comfortably twisted the meaning of many prophecies to suit Jesus, Eg Bethlehem Epthrapath meant the Tribe of Bethlehem, but the author of Luke placed Jesus' birth in Bethlehem to fulfil Prophecy.
>>936192
Origin story of Jesus was stolen from the story of Krishna, tacked on later.
He was an educated and well travelled man talking to average joe middle easterners.
His main contribution was the 11th commandment, stolen from Hillel.
All the supernatural stuff is marketing, i listened to Islamic radio blerfing for an hour about how every miracle Jesus did was somehow 2nd best to one done by a later Islamic Imam.
Both religious and muh fedora athiests are all pretty uneducated people arguing over silly things.
>>936356
>our understanding of pre-modern history is largely speculation and educated guessing.
Yeah nah there was actually commercial records found alongside the story of Gilgamesh. They are reminders that what people bought sold ate and wore was interesting, but the story of a Superman who needs to travel to the ends of the earth to learn that death is the final limit for all, no matter how Super, well that story is timeless and valuable.
Records and journals allow us to do much better than educated guesses.
>>937648
Ok I'll admit that gives some weight.
But what's the purpose of this mythical Jesus story? If it was meant to establish a church with some sort of power than the ambiguity by which Jesus sets up the leaders and structure of the church (arguably he doesn't do it at all) seems out of place.
>>936377
Nazareth was established 30 years after Jesus'death.
It's use is a mistranslation of Nasorean, the sect he belonged to who shaved a line down the center of their heads and were more spiritual than political.
>>937674
Yeahhhh dude what if *rips bong* 12 guys willingly got themselves slaughtered for something they made up later?
>>937696
Wouldn't be the first time
>>936548
>1400 witnesses
Nah, it's a lie, there was no 1400 witnesses.
According to the earliest account by Paul the first person to actually see the risen Jesus is Peter, this casts a shadow of a doubt over the reality that Jesus resurrected. Then he appeared to the Twelve, this could be Peter recounting his experience to the others and convincing them that his experience was real and then them sharing an ecstatic experience where they encountered the "risen Jesus". The 500 were next and this claim is dubious, there is no who, where, or when, it could be an exaggerated rumour where a group of people converted after "feeling Jesus" exaggerated immensely by the early church, or it could be a large mass delusion similar to evangelicals feeling the Holy Ghost in church. Finally he appears to Paul himself, and Judging by his medical and personal character this should be taken in the same vein as Peter, that of a personal hallucination.
>>936540
The holocaust numbers were inflated. People have the right to doubt the veracity of the Jewish claim.
>>937725
Then we move on to the gospels which go against Paul and present varying appearances. Mark ends with no appearances, Luke and Matthew relay shared experiences first off before individual experiences with Peter, and John has Mary Magdeline be the first person to encounter the risen Jesus.
E.P Sanders wrote that this showed some form of competition over who saw Jesus first, he then states that because of these contradictions the idea of fraud is discounted as it would have resulted in a more concentrated story, I accept this, but also discount the other extreme that it literally happened under the same logic, If it really did happen the story would be a lot more streamlined with less competing traditions.
>>937688
well i think the initial purpose of having christ's sacrifice was against centralization. take the epistle of hebrews where it has the imperfect earthly temple of jerusalem compared to a perfect version of the temple in heaven where christ presents his own blood as a sacrifice and forgives all sins in one act, when the Jerusalem temple has to do one every year. this means that there no longer has to be a dependence on the Jerusalem temple for sacrifices and it loses its purpose
>>937751
There is no contradiction. Mary Magdalene saw Jesus risen first.
When are you people going to get a clue? The bible has been attacked for literally thousands of years, and not one single attack has prospered.
>>937725
It's in the bible, and therefore not dubious at all.
You people need to get your shit straight, quick.
>>937692
There are artifacts from 7th century BC regarding Nazareth. GFY
>>937575
You'll quote Gnostic, known heretical works to say something about Jesus.
>>939298
>"it's right because the Bible says so"
That is not how historical research works.
>>937670
It's in the fucking bible, you idiot.
Luke 24
Then He said to them, āO foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?ā
And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
>>939315
God's Word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infinity>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"historical research"
>>937688
Because Jesus did not come to establish a kingdom on earth.
Jesus came to remove the sin barrier erected by Adam between Man and God.
>>936218
>we all know for sure this thread will end in shitposting by both theists and atheists
we all know for sure that OP is a shitpost so yeah, it will end as it started
>>936192
>Without being edgy, we all know for sure that the beliefs Christians hold regarding Jesus are 100% false.
Edgy enough to earn you a place in a Lake of Fire forever.
Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who preached a reform of the current Jewish system and an end to the Roman occupation and destruction of collaborators. He was executed by decision of the Romans and the collaborating Jewish priesthood.
After his death, Peter and James led the Jerusalem Church. They were still very much Jewish, and did not hold that Jesus was God, or any of the other doctrines preached today (transubstantiation, Trinity, son of God, etc.). To them, Jesus was simply a prophet, a Messiah in the very Jewish sense.
Then, a random neurotic and obsessive homosexual and Hellene from Tarsus decided to hijack the religion, introducing many aspects from Greek mystery religions and philosophical concepts considered alien to Jewish thought. He claimed Jesus had come to him and told him the "real" story. He went on to fight with the Jerusalem Church led by Peter and James, and even in today's Bible (which was written in a pro-Paulian way, considering Paul's epistles are earlier than the actual written Gospels), there are small clues that point to this conflict (the Incident at Antioch, the addition of Jesus' supposed "hometown rejection").
The Jerusalem Church considered Paul a blasphemer and idolater. However, 70AD came along and destroyed/dispersed the original church which had most accurately preserved the teachings of the carpenter-turned-preacher.
Paul was now left alone to spread his own corrupted version of Christ-worship, which morphed into modern-day Christianity.
>>936192
I think Joseph fucked Mary Pre-Marital style and then covered up the whole thing with a MIRACLE.
>>939347
How did you come to these conclusions?
>>939347
>and did not hold that Jesus was God
What utter bullshit.
Acts 2, Day of Pentecost
This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
You're just a fucking liar dude.
>>939358
By listening to the whispers of a serpent.
>>939362
āTherefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.ā
>>939367
Your tinfoil hattery knows no bounds, does it, Christian? You sound fucking stupid.
>>939358
>>939362
>>939370
The gospels were written in a pro-Paulian light. The written epistles of Paul with his Paulic thought precede the written gospels: the gospels, when written, thus took from the already extant epistles detailing Paul's version of cosmology and Christology.
On the other hand, the writings of the Jerusalem Church were destroyed by both the Roman conquest and later church establishment. They did not hold Jesus to be god, merely a messiah-prophet.
Paul was a homosexual who obsessed over Christ, who attributed too much to him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/problem.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm
Even the Bible reveals that Paul was at odds with the leaders of the Jerusalem Church of Peter and James, brother of Jesus. See: the Incident at Antioch, and addition of passages such as "rejection of Jesus by his family and hometown".
>>939395
>On the other hand, the writings of the Jerusalem Church were destroyed by both the Roman conquest and later church establishment. They did not hold Jesus to be god, merely a messiah-prophet
How do you know they didn't see Jesus as god?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_of_Jesus#Rejection_as_the_Jewish_messiah
"The negative view of Jesus' family may be related to the conflict between Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christians. A. N. Wilson suggests that the negative relationship between Jesus and his family was placed in the Gospels (especially in the Gospel of Mark) to dissuade early Christians from following the Jesus cult that was administered by Jesusā family: "ā¦it would not be surprising if other parts of the church, particularly the Gentiles, liked telling stories about Jesus as a man who had no sympathy or support from his family."
Paul hijacked the religion. I do not know why he obsessed over the Christ figure, though I suspect homosexual inclinations or a lust for power.
Peter and James resented this Paul, who claimed to have spoken with a resurrected Jesus and who supposedly confided more in him than in the original 12 because "he no longer had to restrain himself now that he had finished his earthly ministry."
By a stroke of luck, Paul's base was in Asia Minor among the Hellenes, and the Jerusalem Church was in Judea on a fateful year in the first century.
>>936548
did the romans (or anyone else for that matter) ever document the effects of crucifiction? such as how long it usually took people to die, how long were people conscious etc
>>936836
Rationalism has taken us far further than any other worldview ever has, positivism is not dead yet and chances are it will not be for a very long time. Our society is built around it now.
>>939414
>>939414
There exist records from later Church fathers speaking of the heresy of the Ebionites (which research has strongly associated with the Jerusalem Church and James, the brother of Jesus): namely, they were "Jewish": in other words, they held to the Mosaic Law. They claimed Jesus as a prophet, and even a resurrection. However, the idea of Jesus being God (hypostatis) and other concepts more familiar to the Hellenes were rejected.
It cannot be stressed enough: the apostles were Jewish. They would have believed Jesus a prophet like Elijah or Isaiah, but not an actual manifestation of God.
It was Paul of Tarsus who first tried to link Old Testament prophecies to Christ. Many even consider Paul the actual founder of Christianity, not Jesus or the original apostles.
>>939442
>the idea of Jesus being God
Jesus himself claims to be God unless you want to discard the gospel of John.
>>939446
And all the other gospels, and Acts, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ....
>>939428
Yes. Days. You suffocate. King David also wrote of the effects of crucifixion, before crucifixion was invented:
Psalms 22
Many bulls have surrounded Me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
They gape at Me with their mouths,
Like a raging and roaring lion.
I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.
For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.
Reiterating this was written a thousand years before the event, describes the event, and describes the effects of crucifixion before crucifixion was invented by the Persians.
>>939389
I know satan's children when I see them, yes. You do the work of your father for free; he cares not one whit about you, now or ever.
>>939395
Garbage. Absolute garbage. I don't know what rinkydink piece of shit seminary you went to, or failed to get into, but your info is pure shit.
>>939416
>homosexual
You are such a faggot. Everything's gotta be about gay shit for you.
>>936330
And you're coming from it even more backwards as nonbiblical-yet-nonheretical Protoevangelium of James suggests Mary was a consecrated virgin entrusted to the elderly widower Joseph for her protection. As such, Joseph would commit a grave offense to God and his people by defiling a consecrated virgin and he wanted to divorce her quietly because he didn't want to experience the fallout of being wrongly accused of defiling a consecrated virgin.
>>936330
He would if a fucking angel told him the baby is God.
You fucking idiot.
>>939446
Like I said: the Pauline epistles were written down before the Gospels were written down. As such, when the Gospels were written down, they borrowed heavily from Paul's ideas concerning Christology, theology, cosmology found in Paul's epistles (the Jerusalem Church did no longer exist at this point). Sometimes, they even "retconned", so that events would fit in with a Pauline viewpoint. Plus the writers were all converts who had converted under the ministry of Paul: of course they wrote what Paul had taught them, rather than what the Jerusalem Church preached!
Let it be stated: Paul never met Jesus. He claimed to have had "visions", but that's it. I will repeat myself: Paul found himself in bitter conflict with Peter and James of Jerusalem. However, this was retconned in the Epistles, to show that Paul was on "good terms" with the men who had actually talked with Jesus to lend legitimacy and authority to himself. Luckily, some hints in the Bible survive which point to this conflict. Like I said: the Incident at Antioch (which is in the Bible) and the rejection of Jesus by his hometown/family (also in the Bible).
>>939473
You still sound fucking stupid. You'd believe anything if it were in the Bible.
>>936192
How can you be 100% sure that she wasn't impregnated by some celestial being that, to us, would be so advanced as to appear to have the powers of a deity?
>>939474
>calls it garbage
Please lists reason why you find this to not be historically accurate. Otherwise, your input is not needed.
No, "the Bible says so" is not a legitimate refutation. Please try again. Thank you~
>>939486
>they borrowed heavily from Paul's ideas concerning Christology
What fucking bullshit. You have completely removed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit from the writing of God's Word.
Hellfire awaits, sinner. Hellfire.
>>939482
>Fictional characters speak to people
>>939486
>Paul never met Jesus
Not only did Paul meet Jesus on the Road to Damascus, but Paul spent THREE FUCKING YEARS talking to the risen Jesus in order to spread the NEW COVENANT, not the OLD COVENANT that James, John and Peter were preaching.
You lying piece of filth. You sicken me.
>>939487
yeah. that's the whole fucking point of it being the Word of God. God ain't wrong, and God don't lie.
>>939494
Sorry, I don't take un-falsifiable claims seriously :^))
>>939493
It's full of fag shit, for one, faggot.
Do you deny being a faggot?
>>939503
You so fucking will.
You so fucking will.
>>939498
What if I told you I met the risen Jesus right now? Why would it be less credible than Paul's conversation with a risen Jesus?
Like I said: Peter and James were not convinced that Paul had spoken to Jesus. This is one of the issues they had with him.
>>939395
>Paul was a homosexual who obsessed over Christ, who attributed too much to him.
Faggot.
>>939501
Prove that a god exists before you presuppose a god.
>>939511
Since you're a lying faggot, the only time you'll see Jesus is on a great white throne.
>>939516
Faggot.
>>939505
I deny it. I merely say homosexual because what other reason would compel Paul to so take Christ-worship to a level that even the Apostles found blasphemous? It hints of homoeroticism, or barring that, some serious case of self-hate.
>>939518
I currently am speaking to Jesus. I've been ordained to recitify Paul's Satanic-inspired additions and restore Christianity to its purest stage. Jesus is currently next to me, speaking in my ear.
How can you deny it?
>>939526
To the perverted, all things are perverse. You saying Paul, a rabbi, is a faggot makes you projecting your bullshit onto Paul.
Paul met with Jesus for three fucking years in Arabia. Paul loves Jesus as God, and lay down his life for the gospel of Christ.
And here we have you sorts of faggots casting all sorts of your perverted shit onto him.
On behalf of Paul, fuck you.
>>939522
Mad as fuck because your god is fictional. He doesn't lie because he can't seeing as he doesn't exist. He's just a character in a book written by primitives.
>>939531
By knowing the truth, something alien to you, and beyond your comprehension.
Go suck ten more dicks and cry 'cause daddy hated you.
>>939534
Great.
White.
Throne.
>>936231
>perhaps true
I didn't even need to read the rest it was obviously clear from those two words that you wear a fedora
>>939533
Paul was never a rabbi. He was a Hellene, versed more in Greek thought. His claims of being a student at the rabbinical school of Jerusalem under Gamaliel are invented, so as to present to other Hellenes the idea that he came from a background that allowed him much more intimate knowledge of Christ's supposed nature.
Christcuck.
Christcucks need to be exterminated, infa %1488
>>939544
Fucking idiot.
Then he said: 3 āI am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathersā law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. 4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women, 5 as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished.
Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, āMen and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!ā
Go fuck yourself moron.
>>939544
>are invented
Unsubstantiated faggotry bullshit. You're so full of shit. You think you're fooling God?
>>936192
Really you're going with this? Not something more simplistic, like that the whole born of a virgin was probably added to the mythos after the fact, to make it more divine.
The reality is probably something like this:
>Jesus is born to impoverished aristocratic family, probably linked to David.
>He's sent to study Torah
>Becomes a rabbi
>tries to reform the corrupt church, but fails
>Splits off, gets the support of the por and the downtrodden.
>Other rabbis accuse him of trying to start an uprising
>The Romans crucify him for this.
>The sect doesn't die with him, and spreads
>Years later st. Paul decides that the real "market" for this sect isn't so much the jews as the gentiles. And thus the Christianity is born.
>>939558
Or how about this?
>Everything properly in the bible is true.
>Jesus is God.
>>939558
This.
Why can't Christcucks understand? Fortunately, Christianity will die, just as all the religions that have died before it.
>>939572
Yes, that's what the Jews who killed Jesus said.
And here you are, 2000 years later, still holding your breath.
Faggot.
>>939562
Sure, just that there are sources that corroborate the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible, but no source to do the same for his divinity.
>>939576
Shut up, faggot kike.
>>939572
It's amazing how transparent the works of Satan are once one has eyes to see them.
>>939657
Still with that tinfoil hattery.
>>939657
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05dT34hGRdg
>>939479
>consecrated virgin
Because Jews would adopt Roman religious customs.
So, in all seriousness. What are the agreed upon historical facts of Jesus? As far as I know, it's that he was born, baptised, and crucified.
>>939562
Even the bible can't get the claims of the bible straight.
>>939872
Except it does, and you're an idiot.
>>936192
Here's how things are:
Jeremiah 8:8 states that the whole law has been falsified, this means we currently have no law.
Romans 4:15 states (and so does justice if we are to believe in such a thing) that when there is no law, there is no sin.
HURRY! CLAIM YOUR POSITION AS A SINLESS HUMAN BEFORE GOD, A BLAMELESS JUSTIFIED CHILD THAT DESERVES NO WRATH.
This world is filled to the brim with drugs and many enjoyable things and crooked and twisted devils are making up "moral" laws that condemn us just by enjoying a smoke of this or even sex.
Claim claim claim, claim that without law you're sinless, request request request that you are presented with the truth. Demand miracles even the more astounding one from the pretenders of your soul, Be assertive, be exclusive, you don't hyave to gift your soul to an "untestable" god, a god that doesn't want to be tested is a demon who doesn't want to be found out.
Soon we will enjoy paradise and ecstacy, and the devil, and all these "jesus" worshippers will fuck themselves forever and ever.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD A GOD MAKE A PLANET FULL OF DRUGS AND AMAZING THINGS AND FORBID THEM?
ARE WE INSANE NOW?
Turn the other cheek? What am I? Some faggot? Turn it yourself, bitch.
>>939908
You mean how it contradicts itself on Jesus' last words? Or countless other details?
>>939916
>Jeremiah 8:8 states that the whole law has been falsified, this means we currently have no law.
a) fucking bullshit, you don't know what a fucking scribe is, and
b) fucking bullshit, you don't know why the Law was given in the first place.
Hilariously ironic you're calling people bitches and faggots. Hilariously ironic.
>>939931
>Herp derp if not all 4 witnesses record all 7 things Jesus said on the cross, it's a contradiction!
>Herp derp.
Never go full retard, dipshit.
Fucking hopeless morons, ditching the only chance you have by blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Fucking idiots.
>>939978
That's some grade A mad there buddy. You forgot the countless other details parts. The bible is one of the most contradictory texts ever written. You just gloss over it due to emotional baggage (no doubt you're one of those faggots that insists you can't interpret it from a secular standpoint as well).
Now why don't you go act a bit more Christian and embrace some humility and giving away your shit to the poor to be perfect?
>>939992
Z E R O
E
R
O
contradictions.
None.
Just lies.
Pick your best one, and I'll show you the lie.
>>939916
Fucking muslims.
>>939992
>and giving away your shit to the poor to be perfect?
Fucking cracks me up every time you fedoras apply the rich young ruler to everyone. Every single time.
Oh, boy, you sure got me! Jesus told the rich young ruler to give his riches to the poor, so I guess I have to too, or this fedora won't think I'm a "real" christian!
FUCKING TOP KEK
>>940025
No, I don't think you're a real Christian because you're posting like an assmad ape on 4chan, and not acting with appropriate Christian humility.
Also
>implying fedora is in any way a credible insult on /his/
This is literally a board to criticize ideology, philosophy, and religion. If you can't handle that, and have to resort to shaming tactics in response, you're nothing short of a pathetic coward. But I guess that kinda goes without saying.
>>939978
Back off, we serve not your ilk, we are the people of GOD not the people of satan, if satan wants to invent rules you are the ones following them, not us.
>bohoioo you don't know what a scribe is
Yes I do, a scribe is the kind of guy who passes down the sacred text.
And they falsified the law, thus rendering it useless and we are in a perpetual state of inocence about which you can do nothing about.
>bĀ“but the law was given because
Because what, what does it matter from a filthy liear?
>you're calling "people"
HUMANS are people, and they are my brothers, your kind however are haters of mankind and deceivers of them.
But please, prove me wrong turning the mooon upside down and paiting it green, such a tiny miracle is nothing for a truly person of God like you pretend of being.
Oh man the fundamentalist nutjobs and fedoras are going at it again
>>940107
>bohooo, believe not the sinless thing because of the wonked law, my precious liess ;_;
>>940025
>if I never put my money where my mouth is, people still have to respect me
I hate to tell you this, but they really don't
>>939468
Jesus couldn't have been pierced through his hands, that would have ensured good breathing for the victim eliminating the primary method in which a cruxificition victim was killed asphyxiation.
He would have been pierced through his wrists.
>>940125
What if he was bound tightly by the wrists and ankles, but his hands and feet were pierces to just add more pain?
>>939320
Obvious troll is obvious
>>940117
Keep thinking Jesus is some PC hippie, faggot.
>>940125
His hands were higher than his head, dipshit. Crucify yourself, and see how hard it is to breathe.
>What happened couldn't have happened.
>>940139
Obvious faggot is obvious.
>>939841
Or that similar practices with different intents exist?
That in consecration, all aspects of Mary were consecrated and her virginity was incidental to the ritual but only gained primary significance when she conceived the Divine Logos while never being deflowered?
>>940136
They could have, and then they could have opened his mouth and take turns to piss and shit in it, then rape him to emotionality break him.
No need to add on to it, piercing his wrists is good enough.
>>940150
Keep thinking that spouting your consequence-free opinion will impress anyone, christcuck
>Bible paragraph proves the bible lies
>they still insist on the lie
>>940169
Jesus was as fully human as though He were not God, and did not require a God Woman from which to be born. That's just your run-of-the-mill Mother Earth pagan religion, like Catholicism, that holds to that.
>>940172
Keep thinking records aren't being kept of your life, degenerate scum.
>>940217
Muslim lies about the bible.
What can we conclude from this?
That muslims lie about the bible.
>>940229
>y-you're muslim
There's no a laughing girl cute enough to answer to this.
>>940225
Prove that they are.
>>939324
You have some serious mental disorder, famalamala.
>>939328
>to remove the sin barrier
Sounds like an episode of Star Trek...
>>940285
Only muslims run around saying that Jeremiah 8:8 means that all of the bible has been corrupted, as that is a major teaching of islam.
allahu no akbar, dipshit.
>>940408
That the truth of that statement is not self-evident is signs that mentally, well, you're not okay.
>>940414
What would God......need with a starship?
>>936466
wew, hard to rebut that .jpg
>>940426
here, this is from judges, a grill is offered in sacrifice, she will die a virgin, what does she do in this moment of sainthood?
But first let me do this one thing: Let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin
Yep, you cry because you're doinga very holy thing, not fucking.
LEL; KEK ; ETC
>>940426
Also I don't give a fuck about the qur'an.
