Thread 17924836

While Jesus may have been a historical figure, he was nothing like his followers claim, he was simply a grifter who knew how to play his cards right.

He was not the son of god, he was actually the bastard child of a Roman soldier named Panthera whom Mary had committed adultery with.

His “miracles” were nothing more than cheap magic tricks he learned during his youth in Egypt (which was known for its magicians). Apollonius and Vespasian did similar things, are they too the son of god?

Also, the resurrection story was fake.

Enjoy burning for eternity.

>Jesus was nothing more than a grifter
>says who?
>t-the atheist...
into the garbage can it goes, fren

The scape to Egypt thing in Matthew is likely false, probably he grown up in Nazaret as a poor Jew carpenter

>>17924858
>Anon has a different opinion
>Don't know why he thinks different

Did you ever think why atheism exist in 1st place? Or analyzed what atheism says?

You're commiting the sin of pride

>>17924849
Christcucks screech about hell like autistic retards flailing in a padded room, convinced their imaginary torture pit means anything to people with a functioning brain. “You’ll burn forever!” they whine, like a seething school shooter fantasizing about revenge on everyone who laughed at them. It’s the ultimate cope—a limp-dicked, powerless faggot’s way of pretending he has some cosmic authority when in reality, he’s just another pathetic wage slave rotting in mediocrity. They can’t win arguments, they can’t defend their beliefs, they can’t even convert people—all they can do is shriek about some cartoon-tier afterlife that exists only in their broken, servile minds. Hell isn’t real, but their desperation sure as fuck is.

Nobody fears their inbred retard cult’s punishment fantasy because nobody outside their incest-ridden trailer park takes it seriously. The idea that some divine Jew-on-a-stick is going to tantrum and throw people into a fire pit for eternity like a cosmic toddler proves Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a fucking mental illness. If hell was real, they wouldn’t need to spam their empty threats like a battered housewife trying to convince herself her husband still loves her. But they do, because deep down, even they know they got played. That’s why they repeat the same retarded script—not because they believe it, but because they’re too fucking weak to face the fact that they’ve wasted their entire lives kneeling to an imaginary sky kike who isn’t coming to save them.

>>17924870
>Did you ever think why atheism exist in 1st place

Because people have a brain lol

Your bible claims heaven is literally a kingdom floating in the sky. We all know what is false. Your cult should have ended there among other religious failures

>>17924836 (OP)
>While Jesus may have been a historical figure, he was nothing like his followers claim, he was simply a grifter who knew how to play his cards right.
We don't know what his followers claimed, because we don't have anything written down by them. They were very likely illiterate.
>He was not the son of god, he was actually the bastard child of a Roman soldier named Panthera whom Mary had committed adultery with.
He was probably the son of Joseph. It's fairly straightforward.
>His “miracles” were nothing more than cheap magic tricks he learned during his youth in Egypt (which was known for its magicians).
We don't know where Jesus came from, so your Egypt theory isn't supported by anything other than the Gospels, which are not historical documents.
>Also, the resurrection story was fake.
Probably. Thousands of Catholics see the Virgin Mary every year, and they didn't watch her be tortured to death a few days prior. It's reasonable that his shocked followers hallucinated seeing him. I think there is reason to believe it was only a handful of the 12 that actually "saw" him.

>>17924836 (OP)
Shalom, rabbi.

>>17924836 (OP)
go fuck the goats achmed
>kek

>>17924888
Literally. Japan had been so repulsed by Christcuck retardation they just banned it because Christianity is inherently a mental illness

>seething about a man you don't believe in
>if you believe he existed in the first place
I don't get it. Are you underage, or were forced to attend church growing up and are still mad about it? It's always Christianity you people mald about, not Islam or Hinduism or any other religion.
See: >>17924888

>>17924891
Not taught in the Bible though? The sparse verses that mention clouds could be interpreted as allegorical. Even 4th Century Augustine thought the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, was ridiculous until he was told that much of it was not literally true. If you want to argue against a religion, at least don't strawman it. It just helps the religion when people see your arguments are hollow.

Did Jesus or any of the prophets ever mention that there were two gigahuge continents on the other side of the world full of millions of people? Or the millions and millions of people living in the eastern half of the same continent where the scriptures were written? Or Africa besides Egypt?Even though god is the creator of all things the narrative of the OT/NT seems suspiciously limited to that specific strip of the Levant, the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, and the territory controlled by the Roman Empire. That might have been something pretty important for Jesus or one of the prophets to mention: "The earth is a sphere mostly made of water, on the other side are millions of people who believe in false gods. You should find a way to preach to them" or something.

>grifter
>grifter
>grifter
Why do I see democrat trannies use this term all the time now? 2 years ago it was FAFO.

also Im still an atheist and this christcuckery is a joke.

>>17924858
>says who?
>t-the atheist...
Well yeah, a christian isn't going to say it are they you idiot

>>17926891
>could be interpreted as
Liberum examen is an heresy. You filthy atheist protestant pagan scum will burn in Hell.

>>17927286
Augustine was a heretic? I thought he was pretty universally seen as a philosopher, saint, and doctor of the church. At least among Christians.

I will admit to no longer believing in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic God. Too much suffering and evil in the world for it to be the product of a single creator who is at the same time omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. I have yet to hear a convincing theodicy.

Protestant AND pagan though? Are you pretending to be a hardcore Roman Catholic? Because I was once Catholic and literally worshipped a gold idol containing Pope John Paul II's blood. In a Catholic church, and EVERYONE was doing it. I don't see how this is compatible with the prohibition of idolatry in the Abrahamic faiths.

>>17927315
Eh, suffering and evil doesn't = "No God", not sure why a lot of atheists end up at this dead end.
Wasn't it Augustine who proposed that evil has no ontology/substance? If we're going by Actus Purus, evil is just God withholding good/life/order. Here's a thought experiment:

Scenario 1:
A creator makes a world that is perfect which will never go to ruin.

Scenario 2:
A creator makes a world that is perfect that can go to ruin because of freewill.

Which creator is "more good"? How do we know a creator is even good in the first place? Does the fact that the world has suffering immediate discount the creator from being good? What about the good that can come from evil (Eucastastrophe/Redemption/Resurrection)?

A lot of people would choose Scenario 1 for a "more good" creator, but an ambivalent/evil creator are not disqualified from creating such a world. In fact, the people who choose Scenario 1 immediately show that they do not think too deeply into the question:

In a perfect world with no ruin, the inhabitants would not want to do good or wish for a better tomorrow, because they're already in it. There's nothing to want for, and all they do is exist. In a ruined world, the inhabitants (though of course, not all of them) will go on to want to change/fix the evil in the world and continually want a better world/tomorrow.

God by definition is independent ontologically and does not (require/need) anything else, but how far-fetched would it be that He (wants) love from his creation and thus allows evil do bring a greater good from it? Maybe not every case is evident of this, and maybe not every scenario of evil leads to good- but we can all at least agree on some sort of "butterfly effect" where many events taking place depend on previous events, which is what many people call "Fate" or "God's divine plan".

I used to be an atheist for most of my life, but simply throwing "Evil, therefore no God" is superficial and doesn't read more into the nuance.

>>17927457
tldr; Augustine's theodicy, if the world was always perfect we would not want to love goodness/seek God, which is antithetical to what God would want if He is perfectly good.

>>17927315
Also John Paul II is an antichrist, the catholic church is poisoned with inclusivism too, I would have decided to be a catholic if it wasn't for the problems in the current church. I'm non-denominational, leaning towards orthodox (though there's barely any orthodox churches near me, so I'm just a filthy stay at home bible reader)

>>17927457
Oh I'm not an atheist, I'm sure gods exist somewhere, they might live for aeons but they are still subject to birth, death, and being reborn.

Fate, or God's Sovereignty, or Karma seem to be saying the same idea in different ways, I have studied the Stoics which stress accepting Fate, which is why of all Christian denominations the ones espousing Reformed Theology appeals to me the most. Having the Christian God in the picture seems to preclude free will, as the Abrahamic God is said to be all powerful. So you end up with hard determinism just like a materialist view would logically lead you to. I grasp for a middle way that allows free will, accountability for deeds both good and evil in this life and after.

>>17924836 (OP)
Jesus is the son of God

>>17927627
Jesus is god. So how can he be his own son?
He impregnated his mom in order to be born and than sacrifice himself to himself in order to remove the rules he placed

>>17928146
Alot of sandnigger muslims bring this up, they're confusing something about Jesus:

Philippians 2 (NIV)
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

>"Who, being in very nature God"
Jesus is God, but humbled. Being "King of Kings, Lord of Lords" is pretty much the highest title you can bestow on someone- and "God" is even higher than that. Jesus being The Lord is still humbling Himself.
Jesus did not remove the Law/rules, He revealed the truth and heart of the Law, and thus fufilled them. The laws prohibiting shellfish/pork was to ensure that the Israelites would not intermingle with other nations:

Deuteronomy 7 (NIV)
3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

We see this in Islam where muslims prohibit pork/non-halal food. Islam and Judaism are ethnoreligions. Now that Jesus has already incarnated, it's not exactly necessary for christians to follow laws/practices that ensure that one is a Jew/Israelite, because that's irrelevant now.

>>17928453
(Cont.)
Galatians 3
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I know I'm just quoting scripture like Bibleman or something, but at least I have something tangible to refer to. Stop ignoring nuance because of your religious injury or your tiktok r/atheist darkmatter2525 mindset. There's more to it than that, and whatever "coontradictions" or mockery you have set, they have already been dealt many times like a broken record.

>>17928146
Just look into Thomas Aquinas and his explanation of the Trinity, you're not really going to understand what it means that Jesus is the unique begotten Son of God- and yet is God in essence.without more knowledge. At the very least look into it to refute it or to more accurately oppose christianity.

>>17924836 (OP)
Where do you get your information from? I’ve never heard of Panthers before.

>>17924836 (OP)
Jesus is just alright with me.

>>17927095
Because the idea that anyone can genuinely believe in something besides milquetoast consoomerism and blasé acceptance of all manners of social degeneracy (they call this liberalism btw) pisses them off.

>>17928453
>Now that Jesus has already incarnated, it's not exactly necessary for christians to follow laws/practices that ensure that one is a Jew/Israelite, because that's irrelevant now.
It has never been necessary for gentiles to follow the jewish law.

>>17924836 (OP)
>>17924849
Oy gevault I tell you this is not the way brothers. To what extent the Torah declares, we shalt not make undue criticism as our rabbis through the ages taught. What manner of Jews be you, brothers? Surely you know as well as we be chosen, so too shall the one lead us in the time to come. So why do you do this thing of seeking to drive the gentiles to madness with such threads? As you recall a little under a century ago, they need not much to be riled to frenzy. Shame on you. Do better.

>>17928577
Yes, I'm mentioning that as a sort of reply to a lot of the "Why do you eat pork/shellfish if it says not to in the Bible?" comments that get raised a lot at christians. It is also to point out how Jesus is the point of these laws.

>>17924836 (OP)
Everything stated already happened in the Bible though? The assumption of Jesus after the resurrection.

Seriously why do Atheists keep bringing this shit up without ever reading themselves? I see this thread every week

>>17924836 (OP)
>>17928903
uhm actually christianity is wrong because-
>Apocrypha
>Forgeries
>fanfic written in 13th century
>they dont want u to read the gnostic gospel.................... secret knowleg... (not paralleling with eve eating the fruit of knowledge, we swear)
>t-textual variants... it changed so much... but not the gnostic texts ok?
Ha! take that christcucks! bet u feel so coked up falling for the jewish psyop! heh....

Christianity:
>1st Century texts
>5,800 Greek Manuscripts, Greek as a language varies in spelling and grammar especially with different scribes but the content and meaning remain barely unchanged
>Fulfilment of OT prophecies (Daniel)
>Themes of bloodshed and sacrifice, payment for wages of sin line up with OT with temple sacrifice (unlike Gnostic "this sound deep"ism wavelength they're on, like retarded pajeet Hindus trying to say Jesus is Krishna)
>Partial Preterism, Most of Revelation has been fulfilled, not that mainstream dispentationalism/futurism 19th century speculation
>Nero is The Beast/"Antichrist"
>https://youtu.be/2di-G6TmUmY?si=1hU9piAb6mr1Nl8h
They don't even know they're serving the adversary by spreading badly conceived one-off statements they'll start a new thread on every few days to "piss off christcucks on 4chan heheheheh oy vey", fucking jews, man.
Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the prophesized Son of Man in Daniel 7.
Partial Preterism, backed by scripture proves Christianity is 100% true, every other religion is a lie and conceived by demons, further supported by historical accounts of Eusebius, Josephus, Tacitus.

>>17924888
>They can’t win arguments, they can’t defend their beliefs, they can’t even convert people—all they can do is shriek about some cartoon-tier afterlife that exists only in their broken, servile minds. Hell isn’t real, but their desperation sure as fuck is.
Your religious injury is showing, just because you've met some lukewarms doesn't mean all of christianity is suddenly false.

>>17928959
Gnostics don't care about the Hebrew Bible (what you call the "Old Testament") because the god described in it to them is the demiurge. I don't think you are treating them fairly.

You have to deal with the problem of evil, and the problem that God in the majority of the Bible is pretty evil, from the underhanded trick of the Garden of Eden to Abraham's almost sacrifice to demanding the genocide of the Canaanites. What exactly is wrong about knowing the difference between good and evil? Was YHWH afraid we'd be able to judge him? Read your Euthyphro.

My main problem with Christianity is the anthropomorphisation of the unmoved mover, as an example hypostatic union is inherently special pleading for something impossible.

The second issue is whenever it reaches a country it absorbs all local religious sentiment, instills a fervor for a few centuries, then dies a quick and quiet death to atheist ideologies, in the process making docile all spirituality then killing it. The Pod People of religion.


Also why is God afraid of iron chariots?

>>17924836 (OP)
You reminded me of myself when I was a cuckatheist... Always taking verses out of context, just like the retard Christians... A based Christian takes the whole paragraph or even the whole section to know the true context.

>>17924836 (OP)
Jesus was a god; el elyon has a bunch of subordinate deities called the sons of god (bene elhoim)

>>17929080
I'll address God's "Evils" from the examples you gave.

>the underhanded trick of the Garden of Eden
Genesis 2 (KJV)
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
>Eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was less of gaining knowledge but disobedience, Man is no longer "innocent" and shall not eat of the Tree of Life,
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
>This is the origin of animal sacrifice, the hide/leather/skin (H5785, עוֹר) is from an animal, which died in place of Man and Woman, where God compromised for them (foreshadowing).
(continuing next post)

>>17927095
>muh democrats

>>17930399
>Abraham's almost sacrifice
Genesis 22
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
>"tempt" is read by many as a devious/evil move, but according to Strong's concordance: "H5254 נָסָה A primitive root; to test; by implication to attempt: - adventure, assay, prove, tempt, try."
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
>Does this sound familiar? Your only son? THE Angel of the LORD (mal'âk yehôvâh, Messenger of God) is a Christophany, heavily implied to be The pre-incarnate Son of The Trinity.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
John 8
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
>This wasn't just a "test" to see if Abraham would do it, this was a sign to him of what was to come, it's foreshadowing Jesus taking the death/punishment of the sinner (remember the "underhanded trick of the Garden of Eden?)
(continuing next post)

>>17927033
>did the bible mention people
Yes, after the flood Noah and his sons populated the Earth again and spread out “go forth, be fruitful and multiply”.
Also the line of succession from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob and his sons then creating Israel, Ishmael begetting the Ishmaelites etc.

>>17930407
>demanding the genocide of the Canaanites
Deuteronomy 7
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly
Deuteronomy 20
16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.
>For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods
>not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin
>What abominations? What is the context? What did the Canaanites do??
(continuing next post)

>>17930425
Leviticus 18
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
>Too archaic? Here, the ESV verse
21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
>The Canaanites did child sacrifice
Leviticus 20 (ESV)
2 “Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones.
>This wasn't just idolatry (which is utter self-deceit, worshipping created things instead of the creator, God being Truth is opposed to deception.)
>This is the worst of the worst when it comes to Pagan practices. At least romans would leave their unwanted infant in the wild to die to the elements.
>B-but... its still wrong to be racist and to drive people out of their land...! (modern lens)
Deuteronomy 9
4 “Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you.
5 Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
>it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you
>Isn't the God of the OT evil? Why is He so opposed to evil?

>>17929080
>>17930434
>"What exactly is wrong about knowing the difference between good and evil? Was YHWH afraid we'd be able to judge him?"
Notice how you're asking questions like the serpent in the garden. Notice how you haven't actually given any proper critique of the story in Genesis, you're just throwing your own personal lens out there instead of looking into why yourself.
I mentioned it briefly, but there isn't necessarily anything wrong with knowing good and evil, but the problem was disobedience. If there was something wrong with knowing morality, then none of us could be saved even if we profess and work our faith to Jesus.
By definition, Sin in the Old Testament in Hebrew is:
>H2398 חָטָא, A primitive root; properly to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin; by inference to forfeit, lack, expiate, repent, (causatively) lead astray, condemn: - bear the blame, cleanse, commit [sin], by fault, harm he hath done, loss, miss, (make) offend (-er), offer for sin, purge, purify (self), make reconciliation, (cause, make) sin (-ful, -ness), trespassive
In Greek:
>G264 ἁμαρτάνω properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.
Wait, in the Hebrew.... "offer for sin"?
2 Corinthians 5
21 For he hath made him to be *sin* for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Sin in Hebrew doesn't just mean "Sin", but it can mean "Sin offering"
Exodus 29
14 But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.
"sin offering" here translates to "H2403 חַטָּאָה, From H2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender: - punishment (of sin), purifying (-fication for sin), sin (-ner, offering)".

>>17930471
>>17930434
Why am I bringing up sacrifice? Because it is antithetical to Gnosticism's interpretation of Jesus coming down from the Pleroma to give secret knowledge, instead of as a sin offering to atone for all sins.
Immediately going off of "secret knowledge" is ironic because you're just repeating what Eve did in the garden. The temptation of knowing more than others and coming across a big "secret"..... Without actually studying its validity. Gnostic texts are forgeries- all written outside the 1st century. Even if it were true, why are there no texts in the 1st century?
>Muh Demiurge is ruler of the material, he did that to deceive all (shallow strawman, I know, just making a point)
Then how do we know anything is true? Even the Gnostic texts are physical, why didn't he corrupt that?
Why don't you believe in the Aquarian Gospel?
>Written in 20th century
>Source: the stars
Look, maybe we can't know everything for sure, but that's what History is. We need to discern and study the source, not just take it at face value. Look at the intent and heart of it all, like how Jesus fulfills the OT laws by showing what is purpose of the Law, completing them and not "abolishing" the prohibition of shellfish/pork and temple sacrifice- but showing He is the reason for these laws. The laws AND the prophets were pointing to Him.
At the very least, look into Partial Preterism (Gott Min Uns' Series should suffice) and more into the canon scripture (Sam Shamoun's a great teacher and knowledgeable on apologetics).
Repent and believe the good news that we may follow in the Will of The Father, abide in the Word of The Son and do the Work of The Holy Spirit. Now and ever, for evermore. Amen.

>>17930508
I don't believe in the Old Testament either, so the alleged fulfilling of prophecies contained therein is not convincing to me. A lot of these seem like a stretch, or the New Testament caters the story so it matches up to the schizo ramblings in Isaiah.

Nice words words words though!

>>17924836 (OP)
Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher/Messiah claimant who claimed he will herald the end times in his and his disciples lifetime.

Then Jesus was executed and the disciples started coping that it was all part of the plan, and he will come back and get that apocalypse done in their lifetimes. Paul also preached this message.

When that didn't happen, Christians looked for new explanations of why Jesus was significant since the original Messiah narrative was unsustainable. Some of them used ideas from pre-existing Greek mystical schools, basically concluding that Jesus showed people the way to escape the material reality created by the evil Demiurge (AKA the Old Testament God), they became known as Gnostics. This created a backlash among more Jewish-oriented Christians as this was too far from what their sect was originally about. This was the period most gospels were written.

There was a lot of debates about what Jesus actually did, and eventually the very convoluded orthodox Christian salvation narrative was developed, to some degree as a result of many compromises between factions (eg. was Jesus God or the son of God? ok, let's say he was both. did he have a real body or was he a spirit being? ok, he had a human body but you can have your spirit being too, lets call it holy spirit, its another aspect of God, just like Jesus etc.)

So yeah, basically nothing is known about the historical Jesus, most of what is in the Bible about him was written much later by people on multiple layers of coping and explaining away things about Jesus.