Did Jesus exist? A case is made here both for his existence

>>17334915
Yeah, it's pretty commonly believed a guy like Jesus was around at some point. Type in Historical Jesus in wikipedia and you'll get the 411.

>>17334923
How accurate were the Gospels, though?

>>17334915
Yeah he did.
Seeing this thread reminded me of an article I read a while back and saved to my bookmarks, interesting enough.
It's astrology related but may interest you.
Peace.
http://vedicastro.com/jesus-of-nazareth-the-super-virgo/

Yes, it's possible to become such a dude like Jesus aka Buddha. But not with all the miracles, this was to much. They melt it all religions together. The sun worshipper, the cannibals and others. But yes Jesus aka Buddha was real!

The living spirit of Christ exists, and it possesses a mortal body from time to time. If I hit the books right, Elohim was the name I the man the spirit I Christ possessed during the BC-AD split. Others have existed. Alan Watts, for example. Inb4 that guy was a lush

>>17334915
The popular Western viewpoint is that the historical figure did exist, but there is also a very obvious and extreme bias in favor of that. Indeed, through most of Western history, denial of it was tantamount to vocational suicide in most walks of life.

You can go to wikipedia which has a very good list of the historic references to Jesus (ignoring mythological internal references from biblical style sources, which are circular and self referential.) From there, it boils down to what constitutes value as historic evidence to you.

For my money, and this is a view often held among professional historians, if you have zero, count them zero, first hand references to the man or the acts around him, that's bad. For Jesus, there's nothing first hand or even first generation. Likewise, if you read the wikipedia article objectively, you'll note that over 50% of the references never name Jesus at all. They describe unnamed people in brief passages which some people have elected to conclude, due to often very vague and insubstantial similarities to some singular trait in Jesus' life, must be referring to Jesus.

And this is before we even get into accusations of forgery or tampering, etc. In my opinion, to discount the severe pressure society has put on historians for centuries to declare Jesus real is to be dishonest. And if you don't discount that then the historic evidence is simply too weak to justify claiming his existence is historically valid.

In my opinion, the correct answer to whether Jesus was a real historic figure is, "insufficient data." I believe the obvious and logical response to those who make a fallacy appeal to popularity and say, "but so many historians claim they think he was real," is to point out that Western society favors Jesus, and this will be reflected as irrational bias in our institutions.

>>17334915
I think this is a redundant question and we should look to the legacy of the Jesus 'myth' for a more accurate debate.

It's not about whether he existed or not, it's about what has been done in his name in the verifiable past and present.

>>17334997
>The living spirit of Christ exists, and it possesses a mortal body from time to time
Are you an Alawite?

>>17335023
>For Jesus, there's nothing first hand or even first generation
Guess you didn't read the argument made in the thread

>>17335031
You mean the one that wasn't about historic Jesus but was about proving God probably existed through again, not historic evidence but some very spurious logic which included gems like, "these Jews wouldn't lie, they weren't normal humans and loved the truth too much," or sloppy pass overs like, "would James have died for a fabricated brother," nevermind that when Josephus penned his comments three generations later, he a; never mentions Jesus was anything other than James' brother, and b: allows for a variety of interpretations, including that James didn't die for his brother either way, and that such a story is invented later.

Yeah, I read the argument and it wasn't any good. It was a bad attempt to misappropriate 'logic' to muscle around a lack of evidence.

>>17335076
No, that was the the thread that the thread linked to. I'm talking about the thread itself.

As for the lying, that wasn't about the Jews in general, but about the ESSENES

>>17335076
Why do you think the account given by Papias of Hierapolis should be disregarded, since it is the earliest account of the authorship of the Gospels?

>>17335026
>I wiki it
>I find commonalities
>women have no souls
>top lel

I read the nag Hammadi and considered myself gnostic, but I am considering approaching Islam. I have a lot of spiritual fears, however. The Mormons gave me a noogie.

>>17335105
So your belief that the spirit of Jesus goes from body to body doesn't come from any specific faith, it's just your own idea?

>>17335093
Papias is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He wrote, as best we can tell for much of what he wrote is lost, well over half a century after Jesus was supposedly come and gone. And he wrote, not about Jesus but about, in your example, the penning of the gospels. And he derived his information from searching out people who supposedly knew the people, or knew the people who knew the people, who wrote them.

in short, he contributes effectively nothing to historical justification of Jesus as a historic person, he only contributes to the historic understanding of the earliest days of the religion. Do you see? Writing about Christians isn't proving Christ existed. It's just evidence that Christians existed, and that's not news. It doesn't demonstrate one way or the other whether they were worshipers of an actual man or a myth, a legend, an amalgamation of these things, etc.

>>17335113
That's gnosis. Straight from the black and white on a dead tree, I swear that that's really what I think.

>>17335132
>And he derived his information from searching out people who supposedly knew the people, or knew the people who knew the people, who wrote them.
The authorship of Luke and John are built into them.

To assume Papias is also correct about Matthew and Mark fits Occam's razor. It just makes the most sense. There is zero reason to assume he is wrong here. If there were some good evidence, maybe, but as it stands, there isn't, and where there isn't, the existing sources are assumed to be accurate.

As far as Christ being an historic person at all...do you think Paul was?

yeah jesus will be doing my lawn when summer rolls around

>>17335151
>To assume Papias is also correct about Matthew and Mark fits Occam's razor. It just makes the most sense. There is zero reason to assume he is wrong here.
I see no reason to believe this. Nor, apparently, does the theological community since Papias has never been declared the final word in Gospel authorship.

>>17335151
>As far as Christ being an historic person at all...do you think Paul was?
I'm of an indifferent opinion to this idea.

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/scholar-claims-jesus-was-roman-hoax-131011.htm

>>17335163
>Nor, apparently, does the theological community since Papias has never been declared the final word in Gospel authorship.
The Gospel authorship is the same as Papias's in the theological community, that's why the books are named what they are in the Bible

>I'm of an indifferent opinion to this idea.
It's very pertinent.

>>17335174
That theory has a number of holes in it. For one thing, its proponents talks about how Judaism was very much about “text” and “no graven image” (please see A3 from the Muslim FAQ for the Hebrew term used). In actuality, Jews were very into iconography, from the bronze snake in (Numbers 21:9), to the Ark of the Covenant, to all the gold statues decking out the Temple of Jerusalem. Also, look up the ancient Jewish synagogue (since destroyed by Daesh) at Dura-Europos: the interior was completely covered with Jewish iconography depiction various prophets and scenes from the Old Testament.

Take a look at this pic: oi67.tinypic.com/2dkbec8.jpg On the left, Augustus Caesar as high priest. Top right, ancient Jewish priests. Bottom right, Orthodox bishops. Here’s the Jewish High Priest: http://www.wwj.org.nz/news/images/15264p15.jpg Tell me, do Christian clerical vestments look more Roman, or Jewish?

>>17335219
>The Gospel authorship is the same as Papias's in the theological community, that's why the books are named what they are in the Bible
Yes and as you are well aware those names are not necessarily held as the historically accurate authors. So not sure why you even bring that up.

>>17335219
>It's very pertinent.
Don't see how. Paul never even met historic Jesus, and the existence of a real entity from a mythology does not validate the mythology.

If we discovered that Sir Gawain was a genuine, real person, and were able to confirm that he lived at the same time, same area, same name, bore many of the same features and reputation, would this be evidence that the Green Knight existed? No, of course not.

So not sure how you think it's pertinent at all.

>>17335259
>Yes and as you are well aware those names are not necessarily held as the historically accurate authors.
They are by any Church which bears any continuity with the original one.

>So not sure how you think it's pertinent at all.
You'll see, but I have to at least know the answer first. But you seem to be dodging the question.

Yeah he existed.

To believe in the second is to believe in the first

>>17335278
The Catholic church debates the authorship of the Gospels.

>>17335278
>You'll see, but I have to at least know the answer first. But you seem to be dodging the question.
No, you got your answer. I'm indifferent. I don't have an opinion on that question, or a stance. That's the answer.

And, for future reference, you never need another person to say a specific thing to present a logical position or argument. Ever. If you have anything objectively relevant to say, then no you don't need me to say anything or answer any question (well, except for logical statements about myself, which this isn't.) In short, if it's actually pertinent, you can explain why no matter what I say.

>>17335291
>The Catholic church debates the authorship of the Gospels.
And they bear no continuity. The Churches which do are those contained in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnXcKYNOsAw

It's pertinent because Paul knew Christ's brother and direct disciples.

>>17334915
A Historical Jesus Christ likely did exist, however certainly not the Biblical Jesus Christ, although the Hisorical Jesus Christ predated the Biblical Jesus Christ and was used as the basis for the stories in the Bible.

>>17335321
How do you respond the arguments made in that thread?

>>17335321
You don't get it, its all legit, every last fucking word 3 and 4 times over in different senses.

God is terrifyingly powerful...

>>17335309
>It's pertinent because Paul knew Christ's brother and direct disciples.
No, the legend declares this, it's not an established fact. Were it an ESTABLISHED FACT, we wouldn't be debating whether historic Jesus were real or not, would we?

You completely ignored my Sir Gawain allusion. I typed it for a reason and please don't respond that it was a bad analogy or something that pretends it can be ignored, it's an accurate analogy to explain why one fact, verified, does not automatically verify all cursory related facts.

>>17335309
>And they bear no continuity.
And we're done. Your argument relies on declaring Catholic theology invalid because of a very arbitrary and subjective view of "continuity"? That's not how the Razor works my friend, that's how nonobjective personal conviction works.

>>17335351
>You completely ignored my Sir Gawain allusion. I typed it for a reason
Not the anon you're talking to or involved in this, but I just thought I'd say that was a sick psychic read.

>>17335351
>No, the legend declares this, it's not an established fact.
Then Peter and James, etc. fabricated Christ?

>Your argument relies on declaring Catholic theology invalid because of a very arbitrary and subjective view of "continuity"?
Yeah. Orthodox theology is 100% in line with the Church Fathers. Roman Catholic theology...they don't even follow year-round Wednesday and Friday fasts anymore, which are attested as early as the Didache.

>>17335415
>Then Peter and James, etc. fabricated Christ?
The fact under discussion was who Paul knew. Nothing else. Here you devolve to lying about what the topic was. You should be disgusted with yourself for reaching this stage of behavior. Either way, you can't provide a discussion that will in any way be informative or entertaining for me. Goodbye.

>>17335431
Well they had to have, unless you are saying James, for instance, had a mythical brother created by other people in his own lifetime.

And it's off to the races with a bunch of baseless assumptions about what the mythology had to mythology in order to mythology and that proves the mythology is true!

And that's what you get out of trying to discuss objective history with zealous faithful. These are people who quite simply cannot look at the evidence rationally, nor deal with the fact that no part of a mythology proves any part of a mythology.

>>17335489
But Peter and James were not mythological. Unless you are suggesting Paul argued with himself. And if they themselves aren't mythological, then they must have been aware of the relationship attributed between them and Christ, as they were leaders in Christianity and that position was orthodox. Therefore they had to have fabricated Christ, since he's fundamentally connected with his relationship with them.

File: cover.jpg (37KB, 567x779px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 567x779px

>>17334915

No he didn't.

http://www49.zippyshare.com/v/2NY8uvLT/file.html

Hey christfag mod, why do you keep deleting this if you're not afraid that the existence of Jeebus can't even be proven? You know in your heart that it's bullshit.

>>17335529
Wait, are you saying that there's no way Paul's relationship to James could just be part of the story? You can't envision the possibility that it was invented?

>>17335561
It could be, but if so, it was intentionally fabricated, not some folk tale that grew over time.

>>17335529

Paul considered them "nobodies" and said that they "preach a different Jesus".

>>17335568
Why not?

Blanket ban on Christfag threads when.

>>17335578
Because Paul believes in it, and it concerns him.

>>17335571
No, he did not.

>>17335578
There is no reason why not. See, there are virtuall no sources that verify the existence of James. There are, in fact, really only four sources that allude to James at all. The Bible, in which James is mentioned exclusively by Paul, the Apocrypha, which is more internal mythology and not history, Papias, who got his information second hand through people claiming to know Paul and Josephus, who was reciting what he learned from Christians. So it all boils down to people alluding to Paul's claims.

And Paul's claims can't be verified. We don't even know if the historic Paul, should he be a real person, made these claims or they were just attributed to him by others.

That's what Senior True Believer there can't grasp. Any part of this could have been invented by the people crafting the mythology or the religion. James didn't have to make anything up, James could have been made up by Paul. Paul didn't have to make anything up, what's attributed to Paul could have been made up by other sources.

And what, ultimately, is the argument here? That a figure from within the mythology's unverified knowledge of a second hand source to Jesus, his alleged brother, counts as meaningful historic evidence of historic Jesus existing. That's really, really stretching it. Absurdly so.

>>17335695
>We don't even know if the historic Paul, should he be a real person, made these claims or they were just attributed to him by others.
Uh, he has a pretty coherent and consistent style throughout his epistles.

>>17335695
>his alleged brother, counts as meaningful historic evidence of historic Jesus existing. That's really, really stretching it. Absurdly so.
Isn't it stretching it a lot more to say Jesus as a person didn't exist and was completely fabricated in one generation? If historians think even Pythagoras and Buddha existed, it would be ludicrous to say Christ was fabricated.

>>17335781
So does Josephus and yet it's generally accepted now that his works have had passages added. Objective thought means considering all the possibilities, not just the one we most want to be true.

>>17335788
No, you're doing that same thing the zealout's doing. There's no reason to believe this all happened in one generation. That's an unfounded assumption, again one that even many Christian theologians don't accept as a given.

You can't have this discussion intelligently or constructively if you're going to keep assuming a conclusion.

Also, why would that be a stretch? Scientology and Mormonism both rely on very clearly fabricated bullshit that spread in under a decade, much less a generation. So you're also ignoring precedent and evidence that shows that's not far fetched at all.

This shouldn't be hard. For the objective, informed mind, all this data is out there and easily accessible. You have to be emotionally invested to be ignoring it this aggressively.

>>17335790
Those passages are seen as added precisely because they aren't consistent with his style or coherent project. That doesn't apply here.

>>17335807
>Scientology and Mormonism both rely on very clearly fabricated bullshit that spread in under a decade, much less a generation.
No one says their founders didn't exist. And if Christ didn't exist, then Christianity was founded by several people at once. Did you even read the stuff the OP linked? You should at least read all of it before flying off the handle, since it addresses a lot of objections.

>>17335869
Don't accuse people of "flying off the handle" for not agreeing with you. Mormonism and Scientology were also founded by lots of people.
Just because Hubbard penned the basic idea doesn't mean it the scam didn't rely on a lot of people to get it running.

You're kind of just an asshole, aren't you? You ever try to think about this stuff instead of just making spurious arguments and accusing people of things like flying off the handle?

>>17335850
No, this doesn't add up, either. First of all, plenty of people still hold them up as legitimate. Secondly, they survived centuries of scrutiny before being declared such and i'm sorry, there haven't been any major breakthroughs in "Reading Comprehension Science" in the last hundred years or so.

No, your argument is off the top of your head, not researched. Not a way to debate. Passages can be and are added to texts. We have no compelling evidence of James existence, and interpretations of Paul's writing consistency don't change that.

And we've really jumped track. I mean, even were this all less doubtful, it would only provide a second hand source to Jesus, at best. That's the very best case scenario for this argument and it's not even close to that.

Grasping at straws is what that'is called.

>>17335781
>Uh, he has a pretty coherent and consistent style throughout his epistles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

"There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.[1]
There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the New Testament epistles, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and modern scholars reject Pauline authorship.[4]"

It's interesting to wonder just how much of this misinformation is ignorance and how much of it is dishonest. Some of it must be dishonesty, anon there had to know that he had never really researched the popular views on Pauline authenticity. So in at least trying to claim that as objective fact, he had to know he was speaking beyond the depth of his knowledge, which is lying.

It likewise never ceases to amaze me how aggressively dishonest so many Christians, especially here on /x/, are in trying to defend their belief in a god that told them not to lie. Can they truly be said to care about Jesus at all? Or do they just care about the cultural label, about following the herd? It certainly suggests the latter is true.

>>17334915
what the fuck is goin on here

>>17336039

>Or do they just care about the cultural label, about following the herd?

Where the fuck does the cultural label get us? Fucking nowhere. We get shit on by everybody. Everyone assumes we have no education and were raised brainwashed to accept Christ. What do we have to gain?

>>17336074
Hahahahaha, holy shit is this a Christian pretending to be a fucking VICTIM? Man that never gets old.

You know I can't buy liquor on Sundays because of how much you stupid useless fuckers shove your goddamned fucking moronic religion into everything? And you want to whine about how you're shit on?

Also, people don't assume that shit about you, you motherfuckers prove it goddamned daily. I mean, look at the last century, you shit bananas can't even figure evolution out, it's just goddamned sad.

Christians aren't persecuted yet, they're still sitting on top and being real fucking pricks about it, most of them, but if they ever DID actually become the victims they spend so much time bawling about being even while they try to fucking outlaw everyone else, they'd have every moment of it coming to them, fucking assholes.

>>17336090

I'm drunk right now. What do I have to do with liquor laws? Boo hoo, one day out of the week I can't by alcohol. Buy it on Saturday maybe? Wow problem solved

Yes people assume I'm brainwashed almost every time I say I'm Christian. Why are you lying and twisting things? How I could I prove that I was if I wasn't?

HAHAHA hurr durr keep twisting the shit I say to suit uour purpose

>>17336114
Problem solved? You fucking Christians made the problem in the first place. Why don't you fuck off and die in huge droves flinging yourself into the ocean, then the goddamned problem would be solved.

Then you pieces of shit wouldn't be trying to outlaw everyone who's gay or Muslims or atheist or whatever bullshit, you wouldn't be fucking insisting that science is a lie in every goddamned courtroom in the fucking nation, you wouldn't keep trying to make every non-Christian obey your stupid goddamned Children's book, you wouldn't be electing every obvious Ted Cruz lying fucking con-man just because they keep lying to you dumb shits and saying, "Jesus told me to run!" We can't even get a non-Christian president into office without them lying about it you people are so fucked up.

You people are fucks. Go fuck up some other planet or species or something. You completely trashed this one and the rest of us wish you'd all fuck off.

>>17336127

Do I do any of this?

You sure assume a lot for a "rational" atheist

Even though you said earlier people don't assume stuff about us

Explain to me why not being able to buy alcohol on Sundays is a problem?

>>17336135
>Do I do any of this?
Yes you just took the most powerful religion, indeed one of the most entrenched and bullying institutions on Earth and said, "why would anyone want to admit being a member of this club? All we do is get persecuted." That's such a fucking stupid lie and you know it. Every goddamned presidential candidate in the US can't wait to suck up to everyone screaming about what huge Christians they are, because no you don't get persecuted, you do the persecution.

So you're a fucking liar for Christ, and that's you DOING THAT SHIT. You are one of them. It's not assumed, you're proving it this entire fucking thread. You're one of those lying, stupid Christians who shits on everyone then whines that you're the real victim. FUCK YOU.

Not being able to buy alcohol on Sundays is a problem because I want to buy alcohol on Sundays. That's why. And stupid, shitty fucking Christians have made laws saying I can't because they're stupid, shitty people trying to force their religion on me. FUCK THEM.

You useless FUCKS.

>>17336135
Don't engage Soup, his autism is slowly consuming him from the inside out and soon will emerge fully formed from it's larval state.

Best to let him stew in his own rage until then, unless you get a kick out of engaging namefags. Ignoring them and sageing their threads helps cut them off from the attention they need to survive.

File: pope-franci-illuminati-satanic-hand-gesture.jpg (92KB, 999x699px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 999x699px

>>17336144

You used a lot of capital letters, you must be right

FYI, most people who claim to be Christians aren't really Christians. True Christians get persecuted.
The Catholic church responsible for most of the persucution, isn't Christian

Why are you calling me a liar when I'm not one?

>>17336145
I know, he's just annoying me :/

>>17336152
The minute someone starts claiming that Catholics are not "real" Christians it's time to put them on the idiot's list and move on. I'm sorry friend, but that's such a malignant, bigoted approach to the various sects of Christianity and it lends to nothing but hatred and infighting. It should be beneath you.

>>17336154
That's what he wants. Ignore him and respond to people actually trying to contribute.

On the off-chance you don't know how, you can also filter namefags by updating your [Settings] on the top or bottom right of the page. Go to Filters + Post Hiding, then select filter + hide certain posts. Click the edit link. You then need to add his name to the filter list.

>>17336152
Orthodox FAQ for atheists, Jews, liberals, Catholics, Muslims, and Protestants, plus reading list and intro links: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x

>>17336171
They worship idols, saints, and many put Mary above Christ who is supposed to be the ONLY way to salvation.

That ain't Christianity homes, it really isn't. I'm aware of how crazy it sounds, but I don't care, I think it's the truth

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dcpVrtv2t-M

>>17334915
Most likely existed and was probably a pretty cool guy, but he got on the wrong side of the Jews and paid the price

>>17336183
>http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
Very first view is depressingly stupid.

"Q1: Concerning the historical existence of Christ Jesus.

A1: Since historians widely agree Buddha existed, and the earliest written accounts of him were hundreds of years after he supposedly lived, it’s pretty strange anyone could actually quibble over Christ having existed."

This has so many fallacies it's unbelievable. First off, it makes the assumption that atheists accept the historic existence of Buddha. But many don't. That's a straw man right there, making an argument for someone else so you can attack it. I'm not even kidding, flat out rational fallacy.

Second fallacy, false equivalence. The historic records of Buddha and Jesus are not, in fact, alike. You can't just argue, "if one was a real historic figure, that justifies thinking the other is. That's a fallacy, that's the opposite of sound reasoning."

Third fallacy, fallacy of hypocrisy. It doesn't matter, rationally, whether someone else is a hypocrite or not. You can't prove something true or even reasonable just because someone else holds inconsistent beliefs.

So three fallacies in one summary argument, that's really, really bad. I certainly don't agree that all Christians are stupid, but if you don't want intelligent people to think that you, personally, are stupid, you definitely don't want to be using arguments like this. This is a very foolish, irrational approach.

>>17336187
I have, no offense, zero interest in your subjective declaration of what Christianity is or isn't except to allude to my earlier statement, your bigotry and infighting serves no purpose but to undermine the entire enterprise. It's especially bad that you appear to be lying in the process, Catholics don't put Mary "above" Christ nor, frankly, do they engage in idolatry more than pretty much anyone else. If I walk up to any Christian in the Bible belt, of pretty much any sect, and start tearing up a Bible in front of them, you'll see some idolatry pretty fucking fast.

No, you aren't qualified to say what is or isn't Christianity. You can't even stop lying. Why shouldn't I say you're not a Christian? Lying is every bit the sin idolatry is.

A real Christian won't run around passing judgment on people like you are either. Bible makes that pretty clear. So all you're really showing me is that if there's anyone who isn't a Christian, it's you. Now please, keep your irrational prejudices to yourself. They disrupt more constructive dialogue.

>>17336202
Good point about the Buddha thing lel

>>17336236

I'm as qualified as anyone else to say what Christianity is to my understanding. Or are you the only one allowed to do that?

Also I could really give a fuck if your interested. Am I hear to please you?

>>17336262
No, you're not. You're a schmarmy little asshole trying to play gatekeeper which by definition renders you unqualified.

The qualified people don't use lies, misrepresentation and minutia to claim that tens of millions of Christians are "disqualified' from being real Christians. Only ignorant, self absorbed assholes are that.

>>17336262
>Also I could really give a fuck if your interested. Am I hear to please you?
If you dont' care if I'm interested then stop fucking talking to me, asshole. What kind of person acts like you do? If you don't care if people are interested, go away. If you're going to talk to people you obviously care if they're interested. Now stop being a petty little asshole and either shut up, go talk to someone else, or man up and start speaking about real, significant , intelligent ideas, not all your subjective little irrational hatreds and categories. You're really an obnoxious little jerk, seriously.

>>17336262
You are here to be a civilized \x\phile anon

If enough of us care and are actually halfway decent people out community will be good. If we are just here to shite on everybody then our community will not be good

>>17336243
Haha, thanks!

People try to pull the same thing sometimes with Plato. "Well you believe Plato was real," to which I must sadly inform them that i'm on the fence about Plato.

It's one of the very problems with those point for point apologetics faqs, they rarely keep up with the debate and a lot of times people using them end up sounding weird, archaic and out of touch (if not downright dishonest or insane.) Better, I think, to just keep abreast of your own beliefs and the supporting arguments for them.

>>17336289
I'm lying? You're the one twisting my words and quoting me on shit I didn't say. No one is disqualified from being Christian. As it stands I find the Catholic church to be misguided just as you find Christianity to be misguided

I'll talk to who I want, thanks

>>17334915
Perhaps we could all treat each other as the LORD would have us to treat each other. With love

>>17336303
I didn't say I find Christianity to be misguided, nor do I. That's yet another lie on your part. Shoo, now, go annoy someone else.

>>17336311
My bad, I might have gotten you confused with the other guy

So do you agree with Christianity then? Because if you don't it would be safe to assume you think it's misguided

File: BuddyFonz.jpg (44KB, 547x640px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 547x640px

>>17336307
Well let's not get carried away, here. Let's try an amicable lack of hostility and see where that goes!

>>17336318
At this stage why are you still trying to talk to me? I don't want to talk to you. And crap insinuations like this

>>17336318
>So do you agree with Christianity then? Because if you don't it would be safe to assume you think it's misguided

don't make me want to talk to you any more. That's a fallacy, false dichotomy, there are more possibilities than "be a Christian or believe Christianity is misguided,."

I find you, (and can objectively demonstrate you to be,) consistently dishonest and irrational. Why would I want to talk to you? You don't seem interested in learning, you don't seem to have anything to add to my knowledge, you're not fun to converse with and you continue to try and force a conversation someone else has already told you, directly, twice they don't want to have? Why would I want to talk to you anymore?

>>17336342

I don't know. Why are you responding to me? It's not your place to tell me when and where to talk, I'm not sure why you think it is.

If you think Christianity has zero instances of "showing faulty judgment or reasoning" then why wouldn't you be a Christian?

>>17336381
The religion of God and God Himself and our existence have nothing to do with our reasoning. We did not reason the world into being

Chrtistianity and the power and spirit of God are the reality of our lives, it is a fact of life and all of civilization rests upon these truths

>>17336418
I agree, but most people aren't Christian because they have a problem with reasoning it out. Once you see the truth that problem goes away and you see that it's not misguided in any way. It's simply the truth

>>17336437
ah okay, sorry about that

>>17336381
>I don't know. Why are you responding to me?
A sad and misguided belief that if somehow if it's explained clearly enough your stupid fucking mind will suddenly turn on and you'll realize what a complete idiot and asshole you're being. But yes, you've made it abundantly clear that I'm just hurting myself trying to help you so I won't be responding to you anymore.

It'd be great if you could help me with that and either not respond to me or mention, in your posts, that you're the immature twit I don't want to talk to. It'd be more typically dishonest and assholish of you to try to keep tricking me into talking to you by hiding behind your anon status. Thanks in advance for showing at least this tiny glimmer of maturity and consideration.

>>17336442
No problem anon :)

>>17336437
ah okay about that

>>17336446

I just don't appreciate being called a liar and insulted. You're pretty fucking disrespectful yourself. That's probably why I don't feel great desire to honor your request

File: 1443221632187.png (72KB, 319x211px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 319x211px

>>17336144
What is Catholicism? Why are you such a cry baby? also Check em

I heard that the only sins that can not be forgiven are suicide and blasphemy.

Satan, on his knees before the merciful Christ almighty after a long battle, desperately cries out to Jesus in angry defeat, "You won't kill me, you coward! The world is mine! Your flock has chosen me and will rise up to slay you and banish you from this world should you strike ME down!"
Jesus, his face hung motionless and his hand still wrapped tightly, but shaking, around his custom gold-trimmed .500 S&W Magnum, presses that divine six-shooter right between Satan's eyes. He looks down to Satan through his sunglasses almost mercifully.
"Well?! What's it going to be, my Lord?!" Satan spews almost mirroring the wrath of God in tone. Jesus pulls off his sunglasses so as to look Satan right in his unholy eye.
"Go to Hell"

>>17336202
>The historic records of Buddha and Jesus are not, in fact, alike
Yeah, the former were written a lot longer after their subject died..

>>17336639
I wonder if Buddhism is as filled with ignorant idiots angrily trying to use virtually non-existent data to insist the legend was definitely really real as Christianity is. I kinda suspect that no, it isn't.

>>17336713
How is that relevant?

>>17336737
It's as relevant to this thread or conversation as any other mention of the Buddha except the one pointing out that it was a fallacy to even bring it up, which was more relevant. So you're asking the question too late and out of context.

>>17336187
ok question about the video you linked though: why would the pope do such a thing?

>>17336785

Beats me anon. I've tried asking on /his/ but nobody can give me a satisfactory answer. Lucifer is roughly translated to "light bearer" and in book of Revelation Jesus is called the morning star just like Lucifer is. So Catholics try to tell me that the video is saying "Lucifer" is referring to Jesus.

Which doesn't make sense because it then says Jesus is his son. Jesus isn't the son of Jesus. Jesus is the son of God the Father.

Idk, it's possible I'm just paranoid, but it doesn't sit right with me.

If they're truly saying what the video accuses them of than it's not good. I guess it would just be a way of showing allegiance to Lucifer. Why so publicly for everyone to see? I couldn't tell you that

>>17336828
fair, I'm going to assume for now it's paranoia on part of whoever made the video

>>17336776
How is it a fallacy to point out Christ more than fulfills the standard criteria to determine the historicity of persons in ancient records?

>>17336875
That is never pointed out. The Buddha is not any "standard criteria."

Why did you just come on /x/ and lie? What was the point of that?

This senator lintwhistle seems really upset. I think he's posting anonymously in this thread, too. Very sad to see.

>>17336892
I still like him lol

so what's the deal with satan posting on the thread in /his/? is it really him?

>>17336892
Interesting, so what you're saying is that you're not interested in the topic, you just want to attack and insult another anon?

Do you self identify as Christian?

>>17336889
What is "standard criteria"? Because Christ certainly meets all the historical standards applied that make Pythagoras and Buddha seen as real people.

>>17336928
You used the term "standard criteria." Now you're claiming you don't know what the term you introduced means.

And the argument regarding why the claim about Buddha is a fallacy has already been made. Do you not understand it, because it seemed pretty clear and straight forward. You appear to be lying, again.

Look at the argument as to why it's a fallacy and explain, coherently, why it's wrong, if you have a problem with it. Or admit that either you know it's a fallacy or that you don't understand the explanation as to why it's a fallacy. That's pretty much your options for an intelligent response to this dialogue.

>>17334915
Ignoring everything that everyone has said so far (because I can probably guess what rhetoric is being spewed back and forth)

Simple Answer is: Yes. Historically, Word of Mouth, and Written account. The Gospels, are somewhat..depending on which version you read, some are closer, some are worded slightly differently. Also the picture isn't always spot on.

Also, you can debate the Enochian Books, etc. But that is a digression not for this post.

Believe? Don't believe? That is up to you. What I would suggest is to ask him yourself.

>>17336980
I don't believe this

The "historical" Jesus was probably Simon Magus, which would explain the smear job done by the Niceans. The Nicean Jesus is an astrotheological syncretic deity like Serapis

>>17334915
>Did Jesus exist?

No, his followers don't have the ability to do the miracles jesus said they would.

>I don't have faith so I can't do 'em

You have faith to pester us constantly with your jesus boy, you have faith to make such bold declarations about him, you have faith to consider explaining how would he exist and even devote your lives at this.
You have faith to devote your lives, yes.

But not for the miracle.

You don't say

>inb4 the prince of the most high shows up and starts using fear tactic to goad everyone into his cult because he himself is very afraid that he might've been duped

File: 11-1452420514273.jpg (190KB, 748x1023px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 748x1023px

>>17337012
dear diary today i met joseph smith he was a real asshole.

dear diary today i met joseph smith, now let me tell you something, this mother fucker had alot to say. it mostly made sense, to me. others were not so fond it.

i bet the former is alot easier for you to handle.

>>17334915
White blonde Aryan Jesus did not exist, no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

>>17336910
When did he say he wasn't interested in the topic? How did he attck and insult?

Why are you lying?

Jesus Christ has always existed as God the son. Even before creation. He got sent in a physical body on earth by God the Father to do his will. And that will was to cleanse sin with his blood. I'm surely hope you all will realize it one day. The life in the physical realm is just but a mere breath..

>>17334915
Allow me to settle this, if 7 then Bible Style Jesus existed and he was white.

>>17336171
Catholics aren't Christians you genius.
www.be4thefire.com/vaitcan-exposed

>>17340120
Stop trying to troll posts almost a day old Pet3r you useless piece of shit. You need to fuck off and the mods need to do their fucking jobs and ban you.

>>17340125
You will be deceived, you will take the mark, you will be judged and you will be thrown into the lake of fire and you will remember all the posts I gave you, over and over again.

>>17340125
Why are you such a whiny bitch?

Why do you even give a shit?

Fucking ignore him if he gets your panties in such a bunch

Catholicism is Satanism under a layer of "Christianity". Don't be deceived kids, be careful with "Christian denominations" , some may contain very dangerous doctrines.

>>17340147
I don't like your "do it or else" God.
Even if he exists, he is not my friend.

>>17334915
>2016
>still worshipping dead kike on stick

Good goyim

>>17334915
No.

I do not give a shit what you have to say. He did not. The long held lie of religion is going to die soon, not in my time but it will. The man's 'life' is an allegory to many others at the time and that's all I have to say.

>>17334973
You got your ideas wrong there, sorry to say, but buddha fucked off into the mountains, Jesus stayed with the people and preached to them and healed them, performed miracles, buddha did fuck all, just sat in the mountains and reached "nirvana".

>>17334915
>Did Jesus exist?

ALL religions are just fairytales, anon. You know it deep down. You all do.

Most "believers" pretend to believe in God through peer pressure, or because they see the "church" as an easy meal, they know the Bible is BS but would never admit it.in front of peers through fear of rejection. The ones that truly whole-heartedly believe in god are actual idiots.

Any rational person can see that the Bible, Quran whatever.. is all stupid nonsense told to kids to make them behave. Somewhere along the line some nutter decided it was all true and Christianity was born.

>be me
>goes to Jerusalem
>jews everywhere
>synagogues everywhere
>goes to Bethlehem
>muslims everywhere
>mosques everywhere
>goes to Seattle, US
>church every 150 yards

>>17343115
Yea, and got killed

Umad m8

>>17344376
Wait...what!!?!?

I wish someone woulda told me

>>17335025
It isn't about that if your objective is to prove whether or not he existed.