Thread 41246159

And he was not dead and his body was deliberately stolen to create rumors that he had returned to heaven.

>>41246159 (OP)
Because multiple historians from that period recorded his existence including people who were hostile to him. His tomb had a huge boulder pushed in front of it specifically to prevent that from happening. His tomb is now empty, with the boulder completely gone, and is in fact a popular pilgrimage sight for Christians in Israel.

>>41246177
For example, which historian? Probably not a Christian historian?

The blocking stones can be removed, it's not difficult at all.

>>41246177
Christian lying

There are no firsthand accounts of Jesus

Christians try to mislead you by mentioning tacitus or Josephus but their accounts amount to "there's this growing cult in Rome that worships a guy they say was crucified and resurrected"

It nowhere near validates the gospels

>>41246213
>The blocking stone can be removed
It would have been illegal and difficult, his tomb wasn't in the middle of nowhere. Whoever did it would have gotten caught unless the locals were all deaf.
>>41246214
>There are no firsthand accounts of Jesus
It is called the Bible. St. Ignatius, who is a recorded historical figure and martyr, met Christ as a child. Literally all of the apostles met him, and anyone the apostles taught obviously met them. It becomes a scenario where by the standards we apply to any other history figure, we would comfortably say he exists, but people who are unashamedly hostile to Christianity say he didn't exist because they don't like him. We have more evidence he existed than you have that he didn't.

>>41246246
Bribing a Roman soldier wasn't that difficult. To steal a corpse that no one cares about

. St. Ignatius, ?
So does that mean that the only evidence for Jesus' existence is from Christians themselves?

>>41246260
This is all conjecture at this point and again it is basically just because you don't like Christianity that you need to insist Christ didn't exist. Despite it being the position of every reputable historian for literal centuries that he did. The evidence for Christ's existence is the existence of Christianity and being able to trace every single prominent figure therein back to the province of Judea and a small group of men in the year 33 AD. All of those men, who spoke to other men, who years later spoke to other men, claimed Christ existed. We know where his tomb is, again, it is a pilgrimage site in Israel. We even know what hilltop he was crucified on. It is still there.

Pontius Pilate wrote a letter to Tiberius Caesar regarding Jesus. Pontius Pilate was not a Christian, so that's one way you could prove Jesus existed and was a real person. I personally believe he is the son of man, but you can think otherwise. regardless, I do believe he was real person who did walk the Earth.

Ancient societies did not have the record keeping that modern ones do. For example, few people in the ancient world were as prominent, influential, significant and famous as the Carthaginian general Hannibal. He came close to crushing the Roman Republic, was one of the greatest generals of all time and was famed throughout the ancient world for centuries after his death down to today. Yet how many contemporary mentions of Hannibal do we have? Zero. We have none. So if someone as famous and significant as Hannibal has no surviving contemporary references to him in our sources, does it really make sense to base an argument about the existence or non-existence of a Galilean peasant preacher on the lack of contemporary references to him? Clearly it does not.

>>41246246
The biblical gospels are anonymous. The apostles names were added later to give the appearance of credibility. Don't forget they are written in third person as well meaning it is something they heard not experienced themselves

>>41246312
That tomb could belong to anyone. Since there are no bodies, no bones, how do you know it belongs to Jesus? It's nothing but "rumors" that contradict each other and are inconsistent. which is the nature of all rumours.

May I ask, When is Jesus' birthday?

>>41246246
>look up Ignatius
>Catholic folk tales and not actual history

Why are Christ cultists ao disengenuous

>>41246325
>incorrect statement
>>41246335
When is Cleopatra's? Who cares? Sometime in the year 0 AD, likely the latter half.

>>41246340
>Catholic folk tales
He is famous for the letters he wrote while in Roman captivity, which are considered authentic by historians. So no we do have evidence he existed. Next

>>41246335
I already answered your question proving he was a real person and you shifted to asking another question. Red Herring.

Jesus was a real person. You may not think he is the Messiah. It's between you and God.

>>41246320
This

>>41246354
Cope. It is the prevailing opinion among biblical scholars. You put your life and soul on baseless books

>>41246388
>Written anonymously
>Is a compilation of personal letters and first hand accounts
Admit you don't know what you're talking about, there's more dignity in it

>>41246392
>scurries off to a different topic like a jew

We're talking about the gospels you retard

On that note a substantial part of Pauls material in the new testament is probably forgeries as well

>>41246413
Genuinely what the fuck are you talking about

>>41246320
This is a grave misunderstanding that Christians refuse to fully address. Pontius Pilate did not write his own account of Jesus. It's not primary evidence. But this story comes from the evidence of a third person who spoke of "Pontius Pilate"Again, they are Tacitus and Josephus.who listened to the "rumor" again It is not an official report of the Roman Empire.


>>41246354
See, you don't even know what day he was born. Where are his corpse or bones? He was just one of the many messianic rumors of the era.

>>41246335
May I ask, When is Emporrer of 4chan Thai Furry who hate racist birthday? How do I know you are real? You could be a bot. I haven't seen you with my own eyes, so I don't believe you are real.

Now apply my line of thinking to Christ. That's how stupid you sound.

(also emperor is spelt with 2 separate R's not one)

>>41246354
0 AD isn't a year. The system goes from 1 BC to 1 AD

>>41246365
That part about meeting Christ as a child is a folk tale

>>41246433
Was General Hannibal the Carthaginian real? Evidently not according to you since we have no primary sources of his existence.

>>41246457
There are sources for that guy

Also the threshold is less for a military figure to some fantasy flying zombie rabbi

>>41246490
Where is the primary source for General Hannibal? What is it?

>>41246214
Josephus mentions Jesus by name twice. While it is mostly agreed one of these was edited by a Christian, it should be noted that had it been an entirely invented portion of the text, then the editor would have no reason to limit himself to it. The second mention is brief and has no "flair" that you'd expect from a Christian editor, alongside there only being these two, not multiple mentions. For these reasons, it's likely that regardless of the edits, the first mention was also original.

>>41246440
>(also emperor is spelt with 2 separate R's not one)
I'm not fixing it. Useless things are useful. Maybe those who don't respect the Tao like you don't understand.

Of course I have a birthday. And if you investigate, you will know that I really exist. It's not difficult at all. In contrast, in the Roman era, there was a population survey. But they couldn't find any evidence of one person's existence.

>>41246457
Wars were always recorded in the official documents of the empire. And it's more reliable. Miraculous type rumors

>>41246433
This old nonsense again. It's especially fun when you begin by assuming the person wasn't real and working backwards. For example:
How do we know Augustus was real? The contemporary documents about him were likely handled by an imperial propaganda machine, so they can't be trusted.
The emperor Claudius wrote a biography of Augustus, but that was a few years later. Besides, he had vested interest in maintaining the lie about the so-called first Roman emperor.
Augustus is mentioned in the Bible, but that's a religious text, so we can't use it.
They can't even keep his name straight across texts! Is he Augustus? Octavian? Clearly he never existed. It was all a ruse to explain the Roman empire that just kind of emerged around the same time of Augustus' ((((fictional)))) life and death...
>>41246413
>a substantial part of Paul in the New Testament is forgery
That's an anachronistic read. In antiquity, people wrote a lot of stuff without any expectation they'd be recognized as the author, so it was accepted that you'd write something and stamp the name of someone already respected onto it. So the pastoral letters, Timothy and the like, were likely composed way later than Paul was alive and given his authorship to grant them gravitas.
I suspect the practice is related to the fact that many people in antiquity, regardless of age or class or education, weren't literate by modern standards. There was less of an expectation on people to read complex letters and write more than their name. A Greek slave could handle that.
>>41246529
It's not very Taoist of you to so forcibly pursue this, Emperror of 4chan I ain't typin' all that shit...
Also, according to Livy, Hannibal used vinegar to split rocks in half so he could cross the Alps. Sounds like a miracle to me. Better discount Hannibal's existence too.

he existed. but was worthless schizo.

Jesus isnt real and OP is an attention seeking spammer

>>41246826
No, the emperor exists not only in writings but also in statues. and his own primary evidence Such as works that he wrote himself, items and decorations that were created or communicated to him by people who knew and didn't know him.
The more believable it is in a war because the existence of people killing each other is confirmed.Cities and tactics can be traced back. to be consistent This is how we know that each pharaoh existed and we find their corpses, tombs, inscriptions, names, titles, etc. clearly visible.
But in Jesus' case, he didn't have his own tomb. You use someone else's grave. You have no corpse. You have no writings left of your own. There is no primary evidence of him other than rumours. after his death and by a third party

There were no wars fought in his name that would have clearly evidenced the presence of forces on both sides at the time of his life.

>>41246505
You're still lying

He mentions it in the context of recording the Christ cult in Rome

He doesn't go "I met Jesus bro"

There's a massive difference

>>41246855
Augustus' "writing" was a monument proclaiming his """divine""" deeds. Obviously imperial propaganda that was penned by someone else. And if Augustus was real, which he clearly wasn't, he wouldn't have chiseled the inscription himself.
Plutarch seems to have mentioned Augustus wrote memories, but Plutarch lived later and the memoirs are apparently lost. Obviously more diversions. The memoirs were never real because Augustus was never real.
Suetonius wrote about Augustus, but there were never wars fought in his name, so the odds of his reality start to fall. I think he might have been real though. He lived after Augustus (allegedly/falsely) did, so he could have existed.
And using statues as evidence? Really? There were also statues of Heracles. I suppose he was real too...
But I think I see. You need a tomb to recognize someone lived; you only believe someone lived if they died. A fascinating philosophy.
Do you exist now? Or will you only exist after you die? Perhaps you doubt the veracity of life until it has concluded. A life alive is too chaotic to comprehend.

Bruh, History shows there was haters of Jesus and they didn't believe in the faith. They just hated the guy. so they wrote about hating him or disbelieving him like you are now..... You're proving the fact without knowing it.

doesn't mean he's a messiah or gods child, he did exist though. which is your question of

>did he exist?
>yes, he did.

i dont even believe in the faith. I just know he was a person at some point preaching things.

>>41246177
There are no contemporary historians that mention him, the earliest mentions of Jesus are from Tacitus and Josephus about a hundred years after his death.

>>41247432
>source trust me bro

>>41246320
The Letter of Pilate to Tiberius is a short letter that Pilate purportedly wrote to Emperor Tiberius. It is a comparatively late text, perhaps as late as the Renaissance.

>>41246320
>no contemporary sources for Hannibal
Nice facebook post you copied there, although it is not really accurate. There are contemporary inscriptions of Hannibal, a contemporary marble bust of him, as well as ample archeological evidence of his campaigns.

>>41246826
>That's an anachronistic read. In antiquity, people wrote a lot of stuff without any expectation they'd be recognized as the author, so it was accepted that you'd write something and stamp the name of someone already respected onto it.
Does the fact that forgery was widespread in antiquity somehow make the forgeries legitimate?

>>41246929
There is no need to overcompensate your intellectual insecurities like this. Just because your position cannot be absolutely defended against criticism, doesn't mean you have to go full retard in rhetorics. It just sounds incredibly insecure to respond to legitimate criticism with "hurrrr how do you know you exist, maybe nothing is real, durrr"
It's ok to believe and have faith, just don't try to pass it off as fact based knowledge when it isn't.

>>41246159 (OP)
if Jesus didn't exist, namefagging, avatarfagging, child raping furry Jewish pedophiles wouldn't dedicate their life to proving someone who "never existed" never existed.

I don't see you dedicating your life proving Buddha never existed, why is that? You're not making posts proving Superman never existed. Where's your Spiderman never existed thread?

Why are you obsessed with disproving the existence of this one allegedly fictional character, Jesus?

It's because YOU'RE A JEW.

>>41247743
This is a new layer of cope. OP strings along a lot of familiar talking points and automatically rejects any attempt to counter them, and it's "legitimate criticism." I do the same thing and it's "intellectual insecurities."
You do know Jesus is the only figure who gets this treatment, right?
Well, I think I once saw a historian arguing Erik the Red or Leif Erikson wasn't real, but no one seems to have taken that guy seriously, as one does with such people...
>>41247727
Widespread might be overselling it. Accepted is the better term.
As for legitimacy, it depends on what you mean. To use Timothy as an example again, was it legitimately written by Paul? No. But does it legitimately illustrate a change in the early Christian movement as it gravitated toward becoming a codified church? Yes.
The early church fathers were looking at stuff like age and writing style when they were putting together the Bible, and they knew some people wrote under the name of a revered elder.
I guess a modern equivalent would be does the fact that obvious bias is accepted in news media mean that unbiased information is false? That's a weird question. Better to ask whether the outlet is withholding information, whether they're treating opinion as fact, whether they have faulty sources, that sort of thing.

>>41248517
>You do know Jesus is the only figure who gets this treatment, right?
In classical philology there has been a trend of purging history of legendary white men. They did away with Homer already, and some are actually trying to to wipe Plato, Caesar and Augustus from history and claim them as fiction, much like you argued in bad faith earlier.
On the other hand, Jesus is unique in the sense that history is written by the victor, which in this context is the vatican. Christian history is heavily influenced if not dictated by jesuit and catholic historians. I don't think any other mythological figure would have been considered historic like Jesus has been, with as little historical or archeological evidence to support his existence, and the endless conflicting narratives about his life. E.g. in islam and the gnostic gospels, the life and death of Jesus is portrayed entirely differently.
I am curious as to what you consider definitive proof of the historical life of Jesus?

OP I’m just going to ask you one question:
Do you believe Aristotle existed?

>>41246177
Why do you stay historians? Analogy. I take a crap in your mouth and you swallow. Are you and I now neuroscientists?

>>41246159 (OP)
The problem is the region has been dominated by two peoples (Muslims and Jews) who HATE Christians for 1,500 years. Both sides are guilty of destroying artifacts they deem un-Islamic and un-Jewish, and both sides have done such for a very long time. Some are still doing it, like how in Egypt the government found stripped mummies that were dumped into a sewer not too long ago.

So in the end only God knows what all archaeological evidence has been lost.

>>41248687
I need to clarify some of your post before I can answer that so I can make sure we're on the same page and not arguing in bad faith.
>definitive proof
What do you mean by this? Infallible proof? Enough proof to submit an academic article? Some other definition?
>any other mythological figure
So you are approaching this from the assumption Jesus was mythological, correct?
>history is written by the victor
But this is true of any history, correct? So what historical account would satisfy you? What's sufficiently not written by a victor that it can be used as evidence?
>Christian history is heavily influenced by
The academic study of the historical Jesus came out of Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries. They relied on church history, which would have arguably been influenced by the Catholic church since the Catholics were the initial codifiers of Western Christianity and the record holders, but it also relied on other academic disciplines, like archeology, literary criticism and world history.
>Islam
Islamic interpretations of Jesus don't come about until centuries later, so their impact on any discussion of the historical Jesus has been moot.
>in classical philology, there has been a trend of purging history
This is a bold claim. I have never seen anyone doubt the historicity of Plato or Julius Caesar in a non-facetious argument (that is, unlike my earlier argument about the historical Augustus and presumably OP's about the historical Jesus). I brought up the Erik the Red example because it was such an outlier. What is your source for this?

>>41246826
>a substantial part of Paul in the New Testament is forgery
>That's an anachronistic read. In antiquity, people wrote a lot of stuff without any expectation they'd be recognized as the author, so it was accepted that you'd write something and stamp the name of someone already respected onto it.
According to Bart Ehrman who pretty much wrote the book on the topic (Forgery and Counterforgery) this is a persistent myth that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
>Forgery was so widely condemned in antiquity that even forgers condemned forgery—as we have seen in the case of 2 Thessalonians and the Apostolic Constitutions. Some scholars have argued, strenuously, but without much evidence, that it was a common and accepted practice in schools of philosophy to write a philosophical treatise and sign your master’s name to it (Plato, Pythagoras, etc.), rather than your own, and that no one looked askance at this practice. As we will see in Chapter 4, there is little evidence indeed that this happened. (Forged, pages 44-55)

And why would someone who wasn't a lying liar trying to lie about their identity go to the trouble of including so many fake personal details like picrel from 2 Timothy?

>>41248842
>the jordan peterson manouver

>>41248842
>Infallible proof?
No, just what pieces of evidence convinced you personally that the question is settled.
>Jesus was mythological
He may or may not have been also historical, but there are a lot of myths about Jesus. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology for some examples.
> So what historical account would satisfy you?
It's just something to take into consideration. If you read islamic history, for example, you will find that islam heavily effects their interpretation of events. The same was true in Europe in regards to the Catholic faith for a very long time, and still is partially. It doesn't render all the evidence useless, but I would not take all of it at face value, either.
>Islamic interpretations of Jesus don't come about until centuries later, so their impact on any discussion of the historical Jesus has been moot.
Is not the same true for most christian sources, such as the bible? How much time can elapse after the events before discussion about them becomes irrelevant?
> What is your source for this?
I majored in latin philology, there are jokes and books about the phenomena that has been plaguing classical philology since the 60's and since postmodern deconstructionism became the norm. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_Homer%3F for example

>>41249016
>substantial
Technically I didn't say that, I was quoting another anon. But if we really wanna play that game, there are seven academically authentic letters of Paul, and they are the longest by word count (which is vary by translation). Romans is more than 7K, 1 Corinthians is more than 6K, 2 Corinthians is more than 4K...
There are six disputed letters of Paul, and only one cracks 2K. So while "substantial" can be a term relative to its user, we can agree the majority of the letters and words attributed to Paul are considered authentic.
I've read Ehrman. I haven't read Forgery and Counterforgery, but I have read Forged. He has a very hardline stance on what counts as forgery, and that has been criticized by other scholars.
He cites the followers of Pythagoras who disowned forgeries attributed to their master. He also cites some philosophers who did forgeries to prove a point, and they weren't punished or anything, so I think it's important to keep in mind who felt slighted by forgeries. Correspondence between early church fathers, as part of their mission to authentic documents for inclusion in the Bible, shows they didn't like forgeries but accepted they existed.
I think it goes back to the media bias comparison. To acknowledge media bias isn't to admit liking it. You might even dislike it. But it's a reality.
Either way, if we go with the writer of 2 Timothy was a lying liar who lied, well, OK. The book is considered inauthentic by scholars. I think it's inauthentic. So we all agree. So what's your point?

>>41246159 (OP)
>How do you know that Jesus really existed?
Because angels talk to me about him often.
>And he was not dead and his body was deliberately stolen to create rumors that he had returned to heaven.
Because I've telepathically perceived the way a body could be resurrected.

>>41249077
>pieces of evidence that personally settled the question
Got it. Thanks for clarifying that. I will do my best to express my opinion in a follow up cos this is too gosh danged long.
>there are a lot of myths about Jesus
Sure. There were ancient myths about Jesus and there are modern myths about Jesus. To clarify my point, I'm not considering anything that's widely accepted as mythological. I'm not arguing on behalf of the supernatural Jesus, just the historical one. So we're in agreement there, I think.
>is not the same true for most Christian sources?
No. The authentic letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark both emerge from the middle of the first century, just a few years after the death of Jesus. Matthew, Luke and Acts follow by a couple of years, and we have to get to the Gospel of John before we're in the second century. So if we stick to the earlier Gospels, Acts and the authentic letters of Paul, we remain in the century where Jesus lived and died. I think that's fair. To use a modern comparison, I don't think anyone would a biography of Steve Jobs based on it being written so far from the death of its subject.
>majored in Latin philology
Interesting. I majored in religious studies. I focused in part on early Christianity, and I try to keep up on developments in history and archeology of the region. I'd never heard this phenom before.

>>41249219
>So what's your point?
My point was that
>so it was accepted that you'd write something and stamp the name of someone already respected onto it.
Doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon claim, and from the way the pastoral letters are written, as in the picrel I shared, it seems obvious to me that the author's pretending to be Paul wasn't just a literary pretense that the reader was expected to recognize, but rather their intent was to deceive the reader into believing that the author truly was Paul, to dishonestly use his authority to promote certain views and oppose others.

>>41246159 (OP)
The game of Abrahamism is one of blind obedience. When you put more thought into it than the cucks, you've lost.

As to the historicity of Jesus, as previously stated. The accounts of Pontius Pilate. Not from, just of. Beyond that, the appostles did go out and create different bodies of Christianity that even today bicker about canon like Catholicism, Easter orthodox, etc... that the apostles all attest to a singular cult leader named Jesus attest to this. That they had a leader proves that they exist at least.

As to the assertions of divinity, it is indeed hearsay and speculative. One may speculate that some of the practices were rites that originate from Egyptian priest hood for use in medicine, "healing". Interpretation of the initiated at what was at the time considered miraculous.

Thinking logic has anything to do with it completely misunderstands the the mechanism of blind obedience and bribery that underpins the social fabric of these "Faiths". There is no winning, because the people eating glue aren't keeping score.

There is no vindication to be had in this line of inquiry.

>>41249407
Also the congregation using terms like flock and Sheppard, is for good reason.

They are treated as things to be herded, not debated with.

>>41249077
>>41249380
The first compelling evidence is the first century documentation that attests to Jesus. While the Gospels aren't historical documents, they do contain historical information (for a modern comparison, one wouldn't read The Great Gatsby as a history of the 1920s in America, but one could analyze it to see what trends, issues and figures were important at the time). Archeology seems to back up the historical aspects of the Bible.
The Gospels themselves contain some embarrassing information about Jesus, including that he hung out with tax collectors, accepted support from women and urged people to leave their families. In an honor shame society, that would have been publicly shameful. There was no reason to include it in the Gospels, especially if they were meant to invent a supernatural figure, unless it was common knowledge at the time that those things were historically true.
Finally, there is the early Christian movement. No one seems to doubt it existed by the middle of the first century. It's attested to by Roman writers, Roman graffiti and the letters of Paul (I've never heard an argument there was no historical Paul). It follows a logic that the movement had to come from somewhere, and it's hardly uncommon for movements to start around and take their name from charismatic figures.
It's logical that there was a historical figure at the genesis of the movement. I haven't heard of a compelling substitute for the adult Jesus described publicly teaching and healing in the Gospels. No need to bring in the resurrection or the birth narrative, since they don't apply to questions about the historical Jesus.

>>41249403
Uh, yeah. It was accepted. It acknowledged. People knew it happened. There are examples of them knowing it was happening. You brought up Ehrman, and he's the king of providing examples of that. Some people thought it was funny. Some people hated it. Some people debated it.
Is English not your first language? Do you not know what those words mean?

>>41249481
The original anon described a substantial portion of Paul's letters as forgeries, and you objected to this description, calling it anachronistic and claiming that it was accepted that people would write something and attribute it someone else.

If we're in agreement that the pastoral letters were written using Paul's name with the intent to deceive the reader, what were you objecting to when that anon called them forgeries?

You say it was accepted, but I think now you're equivocating between "accepted" as in it was considered okay to do that and "accepted" as in it was recognized as a thing that happened. But if you just mean accepted as in it was recognized as a thing that happened, then how is calling it a forgery anachronistic? In modern times we "accept" that people lie and sometimes produce forgeries, but we don't "accept" it as an okay thing to do, so when someone does that we call it a forgery.

>>41249551
I'm sorry I didn't make that distinction clear. I thought the examples of not liking something while you allow it exists and the use of "acknowledge" as a synonym was enough context. I always meant "accept" as in "he accepted he had cancer" or "she accepted the gift, even though she already had it."
The anachronism is that people in the past were more, uh, accepting of anonymous or elderly identified sources. They had the opposite attitude that the new, cutting edge thing is better. They also had a very different understanding of what it meant to be an individual, where creative elements came from, what privacy was. To assume they would automatically be outraged by something that was demonstrated to be false is putting a modern attitude on an ancient person.
We know there were different reactions to forgeries in the past, but we don't know how the church that 2 Timothy was intended for responded to it. Were they unwillingly deceived? Did they know or suspect it wasn't authentic, but trusted it came from a good source anyway? We do have records of different Christian communities disagreeing with each other about aspects of texts or doctrine, just not in this particular case (as far as I know).

>>41246177

good thing no group of people can move a boulder once it's in front of a cave

I don't believe

>>41249703
>To assume they would automatically be outraged by something that was demonstrated to be false is putting a modern attitude on an ancient person.
I think this is where Ehrman disagrees and argues their attitude was about the same as the modern attitude from the available evidence (maybe not invariably "automatic outrage," but they had the same distaste for deception that typically exists in modern times), which is what you'd expect a priori anyway. But I feel talking with you about this is just going around in circles so I'll stop here.

>>41249747
That's fair on both counts. I disagree with Ehrman, since I feel he's being too black-and-white. There are scholars who agree with me, and there are some that agree with Ehrman. I do think he added some nuance to the discussion that was missing before. I ain't sayin' the man's a moron or something.

Proof the Bible is the word of God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l5ZEsXjNVI
1 Cor. 15:3-4: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc

Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
Jesus Christ is God who has come to earth from heaven in the flesh. He died as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of the whole world to save you from eternal hell, the punishment for your sin. He was buried, then resurrected and is now in heaven. John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Romans 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
John 10:28: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
God wants to forgive you, but you have a choice: Either choose this evil world and be punished along with it, or choose to submit to the will of God and be saved. Your own deeds, no matter how good you think they are, can NEVER justify you. You're corrupt and need to be saved. Romans 5:9: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, in what HE did for you. Only He can wash away all of your sins with His blood. Salvation is a gift, it can't be earned. Do you choose the righteousness of God or your righteousness? Heaven or hell?

Eph. 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbPchtYsXNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peW3hXfHAXA

>>41251221
The deceitful god of Abraham is as petulant as they are ugly.

One will not find grace in the bible but in the dictionary: Of seemingly effortless beauty, charm, of movement, form, or proportion. Of properties befitting contentment.

It is not the lords place to damn what does not belong to them, to demand what is not owed, or to steal valor by false claims of creation that which does recognize an entity cursed with no face, or a name that cannot be remembered.

As ever, it is the followers of Christendom that make up for the flaws of their bastard creator. These acts of goodness attributable to inspirational or inspired individuals, not an absentee rent seeking god.

The scriptures are written in blood and hypocrisy. Making promises of birthrights to the dead for a world that is not.

>>41246159 (OP)
Everything is already explained here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Retconned/comments/1m0px7o/attention_at_least_one_rapture_has_already/

Alt URL (redirects to the post):

https://www.truth-now.org

>>41246159 (OP)
why just Jesus and not literally every historical figure who ever existed
how do you know they're all real and that you didn't just gain consciousness this instant and everything before wasn't fabricated to make you believe you existed before right now
you just loaded into new game of this video game 1 second ago, prove you didn't

He did magic and exorcised demon from town to town with his magic wives. The pharasees coveted what he had and he bled for your sins so that we could have residing demon or angel as our holy spirit. He got away in a spaceship after the Romans captured him and tried to rape him. No one got in with any of them and most these new testament apostles were not his. The winners write the history books and redact the truth that they lost the war against his harem

>>41249380
>letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark both emerge from the middle of the first century, just a few years after the death of Jesus
The gospel of Mark was written at earliest 70 AD, about 40 years after the death of Jesus, by a scribe named Mark who never met Jesus.
Similarly, the "authentic" letters of Paul were written by a man who never met Jesus.
>To use a modern comparison, I don't think anyone would a biography of Steve Jobs based on it being written so far from the death of its subject.
Steve Jobs died only 15 years ago.
>>41249452
How can you differentiate between what is mythological and what is historical in the gospels? Did the miracles happen, did the resurrection happen - how can you tell what is historical and what is not?
>Archeology seems to back up the historical aspects of the Bible.
It also disproves others. Moses, for instance, is not considered to have been a historical person.
>It's logical that there was a historical figure at the genesis of the movement.
Would that make Lao Tse, Krishna and Shiva historical as well?

>>41247432
Wow what a nothing, low IQ statement. At least the fumbling Christian is trying. What the fuck are you even doing?

>>41246159 (OP)
its about time for the jannies to clean this trash thread up too
other buddhists are embarrassed to have you in their general group

>>41246159 (OP)
His words

>>41246159 (OP)
>animal spirit worshipper, emulator of the beast, driven by lust, questions Jesus
Opaque

>>41246159 (OP)
I think people kind of feel a conection with the holly spirit when they do some cristain method of "meditatcion" prayer and the like.

thier are tecnically parts of cristianity that are supposed to be more buddist in nature with you gaining insight and knowledge over your relationship with god and that in a way helping with being a little Devine and thus even if you sufer then its the good sufering or something.

but I feel like overtime a group of people wanted to get rid of anything exoteric and spiritual in cristianity other than being afriad of hell and loving the church.

and while that might sound overly cynical , I am not entirely sure it was made by a bad faith group. maybe it was just our collective mistakes pilling up.

I think a part of it is that this is defenently a humble religion , but humble doesn't mean that you are impotent , one could argue being to attracted to be a humble little bean can in a sense be pride , people don't pray and meditate with god , because they asume they are to bad for it are still in a way declining prayer and understanding and self reflection. the same a person who thinks god made them perfect would , is just that the internal scale is different.

>>41255549
also I do sometimes wonder if jesus could be evidence of a second earth or like some fucking bullshit scifi situation like us getting reset or what have you , you would have to explain repeated places a lot.

but what I am getting at , is that in the wonderfull world of cristian fuckery , I am not even sure if proving crist wasn't part of our history is necessarily a rebuttal , as long as he is part of A history , he can still die for our sins and stuff , maybe the bible allready happened before , but we can still keep it since is a transedental truth , but then like , did we fucked up again or something?. maybe this is what people mean when they say this earth is more like hell/purgatory , maybe real earth is very much different. but this is me just expeculating.

this question is more for curiosity than rage bait , but can you tell me how do you prove the buda was a real man , or is that missing the forest for the tress , since being a budda is more of a tittle.????

>>41253582
Interesting, thank you. What's most notable for me is the explanation of time. I have been thinking of time a lot lately, because I feel that it's faster. And I feel the world we're in is not the one I remember. I tried the time diff experiment. 15 seconds.

>>41246214
Yup, the account by Josephus sounds kind of like second-hand (not surprising, either, it's about 40-45 years gap between the two).

By the way, it dawned on me that "Eli, eli lama sabachthani" or whatever the spelling was might have been Jesus actually realising what -he- believed in didn't come to pass. What if he genuinely thought God would come to the rescue at the last minute and it didn't happen? Food for thought.

>>41255549
People work themselves up into a frenzy about his death, you can do the same thing to a movie or any other story, work yourself up and cry and then you’ll feel like your having a religious experience.