Was Jesus married, /his/?

>>1618441
We will never know but the bible suggests he was married.

>>1618453
Source?

>>1618441
No he was an adulterer.

>>1618441
>Asking serious questions about mythical characters.
Only on /his/

>>1618441

It would be extremely odd if a Jewish rabbi living at that time was not married, Jesus talks a lot about how important Jewish law is, it would be massively hypocritical of him not to have a wife. Also, the Gospel of Mary describes Mary Magdelen as his wife,so there was once a tradition within Christianity that he was married.

>>1618527
yeah, all the accounts and historical references to him were made up but every other figure that's recorded must be real

Weird coincidence

>>1618461

Not him, but he's addressed as "Rabbi" several times, not only by his followers, but by random Judean peasants.

You generally weren't given a rabbinical title unless you'd been married.

>>1618600
The whole two accounts, one of which was likely interpolated and the other of which could have just been relaying hearsay?

>>1618600
>but every other figure that's recorded must be real
If you are referring to primary sources, there none for Jesus.

If ALL the sources for Jesus were for a General X in Battle Y we would hesitate to declare said General myth. As we should Jesus.

>>1618533
But anon, a bunch of dudes have decided 400 years after the fact that those are not canon, how could you dispute that?

Regardless of what you think about Christianity as a religion, the historical clusterfuck that was trying to agree what was and was not canon for them is just delicious. I mean, in 330 they still listed Judas and Thomas as "commonly accpeted" gospels, and didn't reject them yet.

>>1618644
*would NOT hesitate*

>>1618441
No. There are some gnostic references in false gospels that claim otherwise; nobody in Christianity holds the belief that gnostics tell the truth.

>>1618607
What would you call a person who preached the Law in the temple to the elders, and amazed the elders with his authority?

File: 1453419214705.jpg (14KB, 447x384px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 447x384px

>>1618667
>false

>>1618667
the Gospel of Judas is by far the best gospel

File: buddy_christ.jpg (21KB, 370x284px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 370x284px

>>1618654
Oh I enjoy a good clusterfuck as much as the next guy. I particularly enjoy pointing out to hardcore Christfags evolution deniers (YEC) that their little brand of faith is itself the product of an evolutionairy proces.

>>1618678
Yes, false. Mary wrote no gospel, neither did the other Mary. Nor did Thomas. Nor did Judas. Nor did any of the infancy gospels, or any of the unnamed gnostic gospels that were penned 100 to 300 years later.

>>1618683
I don't know what value the "best" false gospel is, because I don't love carefully crafted lies, or the liars who tell them.

Or spread them.

>>1618685
Proving for anyone with eyes that you have no idea what evolution means.

File: JonKek.jpg (48KB, 490x490px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 490x490px

>>1618686
t. 4th century bishop

>>1618688
Nigga are you trying to pass any gospel as a hard historical evidence?

>>1618688
>I don't love carefully crafted lies, or the liars who tell them.
>Or spread them.
That's exactly what you are doing with the four gospels you preach

>>1618686
Like John? John was penned at least a century later.

File: 2000px-Christianity_Branches.svg.png (125KB, 2000x756px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 2000x756px

>>1618690
You were saying?

>>1618654

I'm not a Christian so this isn't my problem. As an historian, I simply point out that this idea was apparently mainstream in at least some early Christian communities.

>>1618670
Heretic

>>1618670

A Pharisee.

>>1618696
Absolutely. Matthew, Mark (Peter), Luke (Put in order) John, Paul to the Hebrews, Paul to the Romans

>>1618711
That's what I mean by 'historical clusterfuck', the typical picture being much more distorted than what is presented in writing later on

>>1618699
And again you lie, as you do the work of your father, the father of lies.

I will continue to do the work of my father, as accounted for in the gospels about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

>>1618441
Yea, to the game

>>1618686

None of the Gospels was written by it's putative author, are you seriously this ill-informed? You think an illiterate fisherman wrote a gospel? The Gospels are fanfic, they combine the genuine sayings of Jesus, as preserved in other sources such as the Gospel of Thomas, with the apocalyptic messianism fashionable at the their time of writing, just after the Jewish Revolt ended with the sack of Jerusalem.

Ironicaly the Gospel of Thomans, whihc western christians reject, might be the only gospel legitimately compiled by it's alleged author, since it takes the form of nothing but the direct teachings of Jesus in the form of his sayings, with no additional narrative.

>>1618696
>Nigga are you trying to pass a historical writing as evidence

Pack it up guys, written accounts aren't evidence anymore. No more /his/tory

>>1618700
John finished writing the Revelation in 95 AD, so no, that would be 63 years later, and he was an eyewitness to the events.

Not only that, but he had the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God, Who brought all things to his remembrance.

>>1618708
I'm saying that early christianity runs through today.

File: but that's heresy.png (95KB, 375x360px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 375x360px

no

>>1618717
Jesus impressed the Hebrew elders, so no. And he didn't do what they did, which was to quote famous rabbis and put their thoughts into the text.

Jesus taught in his own authority, and the temple marveled.

>>1618723

A puzzle more than a clusterfuck. The early christians covered their tracks pretty well, but discoveries such as the nag hammadi scrolls and the dead sea scrolls has confirmed long-held suspicions among biblical scholars quite nicely.

>>1618731
>95 AD

Do you have any credible scholarship from an academic institution to back that up?

>Not only that, but he had the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God, Who brought all things to his remembrance.

Sorry, but schizophrenic delusions are not evidence.

>>1618721
No, that's what you call a member of the Pharisees, which Jesus never was. Jesus tore down Pharisaical Judaism.

>>1618728
Matthew the tax collector wrote his in Hebrew, bad Hebrew; John Mark wrote Peter's account; Luke put all the accounts into good order; John the beloved wrote his own account.

You're a victim of modern liberal scholars who don't believe in Jesus, like Bart Ehrman.

>>1618738
Genuine curiosity: what suspicions did they confirm?

>>1618730
>this book is canon and history because it is written down
>t-that other book? w-what about it, there is n-nothing true in there

They literally cherrypicked what fit their current agenda, 400 years after the events.

>>1618731

John the Divine is not John the Baptist, they are quite different people. Revelation is not an exceptional document, there are a great many like it authored around the same time as the gospels, apocalyptic fanfic that was for the most part kept out of the bible. Revelation was only included because the early bishops made the same mistake you have, of thinking the author was saint John.

>>1618738
That gnostics were always the enemy of Christianity? That the Old Testament is different from the New Testament?

>>1618748
>You're a victim of modern liberal scholars who don't believe in Jesus, like Bart Ehrman.

And you're a victim of a couple thousand years of sunk cost fallacy.

Reminder: Bart Ehrman started out quite religious and sought only to confirm the historicity of his faith, he didn't have a reason to twist facts towards atheism.

>>1618741
I hope one day you realize how futile and empty your personal philosophy is.

>>1618737

Spinoza impressed them too, but he was still denounced as a heretic. But Jesus seems to have been pretty orthodox for most of his life, barring his brief ministry.

>>1618757
Back atcha.

>>1618752
Nobody but you said that John the Divine was John the Baptist.

John the Beloved is John the Revelator.

John the Baptist died before Jesus his cousin did.

>>1618755
Bart was always a tool of the devil.

>>1618752
Oh, and they decided to keep Pete's revelation non-canon because of reasons. Both from the same era

>>1618758
Spinoza did not teach in the second temple, no. You keep conflating the holy with the unholy, to your error.

>>1618757
He already knows. Why do you think he spends his time and energy trying to discredit God

>>1618760
I don't have a personal philosophy.

I have the Holy Spirit of God living in me, resurrecting me to eternal life in Christ Jesus.

>>1618770
In a vain attempt to push back the darkness, I would suppose.

>>1618765
>everyone that disagrees with me is a tool of the adversary

Are you fucking insane? He started out as a fundamentalist.

>>1618731

>John finished writing the Revelation in 95 AD, so no, that would be 63 years later, and he was an eyewitness to the events.

For an eyewitness, don't you think it's rather odd that he can't tell the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic, like he slips up in 19:13 and 19:17?

File: 1470685339499.jpg (9KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x240px

>>1618773
>I don't have a personal philosophy.

>>1618749

Google Marcan primacy. It had long been suspected that Mark was the first gospel, and the others were basically fan edits of Mark. The theory relies on the existence of a now-lost "sayings gospel" of Jesus, the discovery of the gospel of Thomas pretty much confirms the existence of this document, "Q" (from quelle, german for source).

>>1618770
Alternatively, I'm bored, and talking to crazy people can be pretty fun.

>>1618773
Which you adopted with the same faulty mental equipment as everyone else. Your choice to believe in JEEBUS was a personal philosophical one.

>>1618744

Odd, as he parrots a number of Pharisee ideas, and basically quotes Hillel word for word in Matthew 7:12.

>>1618776
That's what Jesus says, yes. Everyone not For Jesus is Against Jesus; everyone not gathering people to Jesus is scattering them away from Jesus.

>>1618780
Neat. Thanks.

>>1618780
So there was a written bunch of Jesus' teachings, from which Mark and Thomas derived, and then the rest just copied Mark?

>>1618777
I think it's more odd that you hold that against him, while ignoring the other 99.9%, yes.

You know Hebrew came from Aramaic, yes?

>>1618785
Have you ever talked to a psychiatrist? Their extensive knowledge of psychology and psychological pharmacology could help you.

>>1618748

I don't care whether he existed or not, but the evidence suggests to me that he very much did. This doesn't mean I have to accept anachronistic dates for the gospels, I certainly don't believe they were written by their named authors, the fact they are all in greek and not aramaic suggests as much. The letters of Paul are the earliest documents in the bible,and he never claims to have met Jesus.

>>1618797
Nice meme

>>1618778
Jesus is the author and finisher of my salvation.

I merely consented to be saved.

>>1618753

A gnostic bishop very nearly became pope, the early church was very diverse. And yes, in my opinion the NT has almost no relation to the OT. It seems to me that the OT is used solely as a justification for Jews to follow Jesus,and the decision to include it in the christian canon was a mistake.

>>1618803
What meme? I'm genuinely trying to help. You display a classic pattern of paranoid delusions. Believing that every disagreement is the conscious work of an unseen supernatural adversary is very typical of paranoid schizophrenics.

>>1618780
There is no Q, none of the gospels are dated precisely, and the Markian primacy is a hypothesis, not a fact.

The more the dating of the gospels is performed, the earlier the dates they were written become. We're now in the 40's.

>>1618769

You're an idiot and a devil worshipper. Enjoy your lake of fire, you dumb bastard.

>>1618812
>We're now in the 40's.

[Citation needed]

>>1618811
I'm a different guy than who you replied to

Still, nice meme

>>1618792

More or less, yes.

>>1618812

You're completely wrong and dishonest.

>>1618794

>I think it's more odd that you hold that against him, while ignoring the other 99.9%, yes.

No, there's plenty more about John that's obviously pointing to the fact that the author had only a vague idea of what was going on in 1st century Judea, or is in contradiction to the other gospels, but that's about as smoking of a gun as you can find.


>You know Hebrew came from Aramaic, yes?

The ("modern") Hebrew ALPHABET came from Aramaic. The language did not. Alphabet!= language you idiot.

Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that some thousand years later, the two were very well distinct, and a native witness would have Aramaic as his cradle-tongue, so to misattribute Aramaic words as Hebrew means that John has a poor grasp of the language. Do you think he was just retarded, or wasn't actually a native witness?

>>1618781
Had nothing to do with philosophy.

Had everything with wanting to know the living God.

>>1618784
Jesus taught the Law.

The New Covenant did not come into power until He died. Like any Will.

>>1618794
actually both hebrew and aramaic came from an early form of Phoenician. aramaic became widely spoken in Judea during the persian period, which is why hebrew now uses the aramaic alphabet instead of the paleo-hebrew script found in Judah pre-exile

>>1618733
Hahaha, you think evolution demands ancestors must be extinct>>1618737

>>1618792
No.

>>1618797
If you think Jesus is crazy, I'd say you have a pretty big problem.

>>1618849
Scratch that last link to ...737

(F#@$ mobile key pad)

>>1618798
Why would the people that disbelieve be the authority?

Would that be acceptable in any other field of endeavor?

Acts 9
Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

>>1618810
There's no difference between a lost and evil gnostic and a lost and evil pope to the Kingdom of God.

These threads are always a hoot. You get people that want to talk about the Bible as a document influenced by history, who can point to evidence of its evolution as such, and then you get people with an ideological reason to deny that it's anything but the divinely inspired word of God who refuse to acknowledge any evidence who will shitpost endlessly.

>>1618817
I worship the creator of the devil, while you worship the created devil.

I'm happy to let the chips fall where they may.

>>1618819
Google early dating of the gospels.

>>1618864
>Why would the people that disbelieve be the authority?
>Would that be acceptable in any other field of endeavor?

Why would people that reject history be the authority? You don't get historians talking about theology, so leave the history to the historians, and the work of historians points to the Bible being a work of human fiction.

>>1618822
Telling people there is a Q is dishonest. It was a hypothesis in Germany, and as all things German, it has failed.

There is no Q.

Matthew, Peter and John were all eyewitnesses to the same events.

>>1618872
No. Not necessarily because I reject your position, but because every attempt to anything like that brings up Christian websites, and I don't want anything with so obvious an ideological slant. Got anything from a credible secular academic institution?

>>1618834
So, he's exiled on Patmos because Rome can't kill him, and you're concerned that he's not keeping up with the kardsashians?

I think he was in his 90's. And I think he spoke Aramaic mostly, as did most Hebrews. And a little Hebrew. Like most Hebrews.

File: 1453777657036.jpg (14KB, 599x337px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 599x337px

>>1618867
That's pretty much /his/ in a nutshell though, no? For every 2 anons that would like to discuss Bible as a document/signifance of battle x in war y/origins of philosophy z there will be 5 others who derail the bread into shitposting

Frankly I think /shi/ would be better name for the board at this rate

>>1618849
No, I'm saying the graph is false.

Early Christianity should be a gray line under all of those other offshoots, with an arrow indicating it will be like that forever into infinity.

>>1618864
>Why would the people that disbelieve be the authority?
>Would that be acceptable in any other field of endeavor?

Yes? Who do you think would be a better judge of islam, a muslim or a secular koranic scholar? Do you not know what a selection bias is?

And fine if you want to count that as actually meeting Jesus I won't object, I'm not disputing Paul's centrality to christianity in any way, quite the opposite in fact christianity as we now know it is largely his creation.

>>1618884
He'd have known he difference between Hebrew words and Aramaic words. It would be like an Englishman who speaks a little German forgetting the difference between those two languages.

>>1618866

I agree, god is love, all are saved.

>>1618875
Can you find a dozen historians that agree on everything?

And that's not a supernatural field!

>>1618871

Good goy.

File: 1461831484552.jpg (16KB, 200x303px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x303px

>>1618884
>I think he was in his 90's

>>1618883
Again, in what field of endeavor are outsiders given more credibility than insiders?

>>1618877

The discovery of Thomas pretty much confirms Q.

>Matthew, Peter and John were all eyewitnesses to the same events.

"No."

>>1618898
But they're not outsiders. They're not talking about theology, they're talking about history, which the Bible is a part of. Moron.

>>1618890
Your analogy fails, as studying the koran is a secular endeavor, as is studying history.

Your bias fails, as you cannot be a serious student of the bible without the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

>>1618904
see >>1618797

>>1618441

There's no way to no. The bible has Jesus talk about hating your family and leaving everything to follow him, and while he has female companions there isn't really a strong suggestion of romantic relationships. If he was apocalyptic then it would have been reasonable to assume he left his wife to preach, if he had one.

>>1618898
In history.

Would you believe a Russian document stating that the losses in battle of Exampleberg were 10 thousand to 100 thousand, or a Dutch historian who claims 40k-60k?

>>1618891
And? So what? Have you or anyone else even listed what you think the problem is?

Do you not know that there is Aramaic language in Daniel?

>>1618892
God is just, all unbelievers perish by being cast into a lake of fire for eternal torment.

Well deserved eternal torment.

>>1618898

History you stupid bastard. Objectivity is the most important virtue for a historian.

>>1618901
Why was Marc not derived from Q then? The author just wanted his own, narrative version as opposed to more philosophical Q?

>>1618897
Jesus died in 32 AD. John a fully grown man was with him since 29 AD. John is writing in 95 AD.

>>1618888
The graph is obviously simplified.
Point is that different branches diverge into ever more different branches. Presbetarians didn't spawn directly from Early Christianity. Your religion is subject to change over time: evolution.

>>1618901
The gospel of Thomas is a fraud, fake, forgery and gnostic gospel that can't confirm jack shit. Earliest copy is in 200 AD. Not written by the apostle Thomas, and contains absurd and idiotic verses that contradict scripture.

Such as women have to be changed into men before they can be saved.

>>1618902
the History of the bible is 100% accurate.

Go find me a secular historian who admits that.

>>1618914
So the baker says the losses were a million, and the general says the losses were 95,000.

Believe the baker, because he's not in the business of warfare?

>>1618931
Go find me some proof.

>>1618922
Give a 90 year old man a stack of paper and a pen, tell him to write a book. Now do the same but with 2000 years of healthcare advancement less.

>>1618918
Name one objective historian.

>>1618884

>So, he's exiled on Patmos because Rome can't kill him, and you're concerned that he's not keeping up with the kardsashians?

I'm concerned because he treats a large number of "historical" occurrences in the life of Jesus which have no actual basis in Jewish practice. For instance, he claims that in 18:28 that the priests didn't want to enter Pilate's house to avoid ritual uncleanliness. The only source of ritual uncleanliness you can get by sharing a roof is to be in the same building as a corpse. It would be odd, to say the least, to think that Pilate would be keeping a dead body or two in his house, and you'd think that if this were the case, John could spend at least a line or two explaining what the hell's going on.

>. And I think he spoke Aramaic mostly, as did most Hebrews. And a little Hebrew. Like most Hebrews.

So again, why would he erroneously name two Aramaic words as Hebrew? And for someone that old and senile he can recall with amazing clarity exact conversations, some of which he must have heard secondhand.

>>1618904

Okay but I'm not interested in the mumbo-jumbo, I'm talking about natural facts such as the date of composition and the authorship. I can study the bible as an archaeological artefact without believing a word of it, just as I can the epic of Gilgamesh or the Illiad.

>>1618923
Nope.

What it took to be a christian 2000 years ago is exactly what it takes now.

Gray bar all the way on the bottom, from 32 AD to infinity.

>>1618936
Shun a baker for spreading gossips, shun the general for his blantant propaganda, shun you for being a cuck, then listen to an actual historian.

Your analogy is shit, and you should stop posting

>>1618938
Go find me an historian who recognizes the truth of the history in the bible.

>>1618944
Not that guy, but are you seriously this new to this? Alabama here considers the bible a special exception. Either ignore him or make fun of him, but don't bother engaging him.

>>1618939
Add the Holy Spirit, and change the ballgame.

This board has more evil people than /x/.

>>1618916

>Do you not know that there is Aramaic language in Daniel?

As well as Ezra and Nechemiah, and a line in Jeremiah. You know what you don't see in any of those books? Claims that Aramaic words are in fact Hebrew ones.

>>1618950
No. There's no proof for its claims.

>>1618917

Eternal torment is not just and god is just but he is also good. Also god's love is greater than his justice, for he is omnibenevolent so his justice follows from his nature of benevolence.

>>1618942
Oh, it's you.

Yeast.

Unclean.

Passover.

Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Not wanting to go into an unclean building and miss the high holy days.

For a Jew, you sure are a shit one.

Did Athena spring from Zeus' head?

>>1618944
You cannot, because you are unaware of the evil and malevolent spiritual forces blocking you from doing that, and of course you are not only blissfully ignorant of same, but completely defenseless before them.

>>1618958
Show me where John claimed the Aramaic words were Hebrew.

When he wrote in Greek.

>>1618959

There's a massive mountain of archaeological proof.

And again, because you are evil, you will never understand why you can't see it.

>>1618960
Oh, it's so just!

It's so righteous!

>>1618972
You suck at spreading the good news.

>>1618921

Yes. Q is just a collection of sayings, very like the Gospel of Thomas, with no narrative at all. Mark added the narrative of the of Jesus' life as an analogy for the failed Jewish Revolt and the disaster of the destruction of the second temple, and interspersed the sayings of Jesus where they seemed most appropriate. This was apparently very successful on the /slashfic/ of it's day and spawned many imitations, rewrites and reboots, only three of which were kept by the early church out of some few hundred that existed.

>>1618929
>Earliest copy is in 200 AD.

You realise this is older than any other gospel, right? The date a book was first written can differ hugely from the date of the oldest surviving copy, this should be obvious even to you.

>>1618940

Objectivity is something to strive for, not something you can actually achieve.

File: 1459506146167.png (196KB, 239x568px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 239x568px

>>1618977
>narrative of the of Jesus' life as an analogy for the failed Jewish Revolt
I... never even considered it. So did he just bend the real events, or would he just make up the whole damn thing?

>>1618946
>Lutherans aren't real
>Baptists aren't real
>Orthodoxs aren't real
>Anglicans aren't real
>Calvinists aren't real
>Assyrians aren't real
>...
Are you comfortable under your blanket of denial?

>>1618527
TIBS FEDRAH MALADY

Even the most hardcore Atheists I've ever met aknowledge that Jesus existed.

>>1618867
Every single one of these
/thread

>>1618961

Timing, timing. Remember, this is John, who is claiming that it's before the offering of the paschal lamb, not the Synoptics, who are claiming it's afterwards.

Furthermore, having leavened bread is sinful, not ritually unclean. Itwould not prevent you from bringing the Pesach.


But of course, knowing this would require basic literacy in the subjects you're talking about, and we both know that won't happen.

>For a Jew, you sure are a shit one.

That might mean something if you weren't hilariously deluded as to what Judaism is about. But then, I suppose if you knew that, you wouldn't be Christian, would you?

>>1619003
>Assyrians aren't real
You know what, I'm okay with this. They were a bunch of assholes

>>1619004
He can still exist and be a mythical character, kinda like how Gilgamesh was most likely a king of Ur, but probably didn't do most of the crazy shit in the epic of Gilgamash. The real Yeshua is probably different from the biblical Jesus.

>>1618967

No I'm well aware that satan worshippers such as yourself exist, who try to terrorise and fool people into "donating" to their "church" in order to buy what you already have, ie, an invitation to heaven, redeemed with the blood of god. You think the blood of god is washed away by the sins of a mere man? Jesus says to love another, not because god will throw you in a lake of fire if you don't but because loving one another is the best way to live. You can be a miserable bastard all your life, god's not going to throw you in a lake of fire for it, your punishment was in living a life without love, not some eternal torture. The gift of salvation is in the hands of god, and he has already given it to us freely.

>>1618970

You haven't actually read John, have you?

Ὁ οὖν Πειλᾶτος ἀkούσας τῶν λόγων τούτων ἤγαγεν ἔξω τὸν Ἰησοῦν, kαὶ ἐkάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Λιθόστρωτον, Ἑβραϊστὶ δὲ Γαββαθα.

Therefore Pilate, having heard these words, brought out Jesus and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone pavement, in the Hebrew, "Gabbatha".

Ἑβραϊστὶ

"In the Hebrew".

An out and out claim, written in Greek, as to what langauge a local word was in. A claim that is wrong. It's almost like John knew Greek, and not really Aramaic.

>>1618974

Only if you twist those words to mean of god something they do not mean if applied to us. Remind me again who is the father of lies? Explain to me why god would say he is good, but leave it unstated that this does not mean good in the sense humans comprehend it?

File: 1452737055884.jpg (51KB, 661x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 661x720px

>>1619027
I guess he just [spoiler]started with the Greeks?[/spoiler]

>>1618995

It's impossible to say, really. Jesus was a guy, he said some things, those things were valued enough to be compiled in a book and reused generations later to add weight to a parable, how much of that parable was based on the actual Jesus?

>>1619027

This passage actually hi-lights another problem with John: How did he know any of what happened when Jesus met Pilate? He wasn't there, Jesus died right after, did Pilate tell him?

>>1618976
I was always a "tell me the bad news first" kind of guy.

>>1618942
>For instance, he claims that in 18:28 that the priests didn't want to enter Pilate's house to avoid ritual uncleanliness.

Weren't those Pharisees though? They were hyper-Jews that Jesus complained about for making up laws and being too legalistic. "Would you help your animal out of a ditch?" and all that.

>>1618977

Q is nothing.

Q is a hypothesis.

Q does not exist.

>>1619045
I always considered the whole thing mostly anecdotal, but never actually drew the parallel to the fall of the Second Temple. That is highly intriguing to me

>>1618988
Dated to be written in 200.

Not written in 40 and first known copy 200.

>>1618992
Glad we agree.

So let's lay off the fallacious appeals to authority; for every historian who says X, I can find three to say Y.

>>1618995
Why do you believe the guy who doesn't believe in the bible about the bible?

Everything he has told you has been proven to be frauds, hoaxes, lies and guesses (Q hypothesis).

>>1619003
There are Christians in all of those groups, on that gray line at the bottom going into eternity.

To take them off the gray line of salvation into eternity is to deny them salvation.

>>1619071

Go back to work Mark Goodacre

>>1619070

>Weren't those Pharisees though?

Nope, those were Sadducees, as the Priesthood (and most of Jerusalem and the surrounding area) was generally with that sect. Acts 5:17 claims that the High Priest was a Sadducee, and this jives with guys like Josephus, although I'd have to dig a little if you wanted an exact passage.

>They were hyper-Jews that Jesus complained about for making up laws and being too legalistic

Which is doubly amusing, since it's the Pharisees that are the ancestors of all branches of modern Judaism, and you have significant number of statements at least attributed to that era from prominent Pharisees like Hillel going in the opposite direction, with the invention of things like workarounds for Sabbath year credit crashes, or the exception of lifesaving virtually swallowing up the ban on medicinal usage.

It's actually another big problem with the Gospels in general, as the two sects' positions are very often conflated.

>>1619007
Oh, I know what it's about.

It's about having a covenant with YHWH.

That YHWH broke in 400 BC after your people broke it countless times; He even broke His staff and rod just to show you how serious he was.

You think you're a religious Jew?

With no Temple? No High Priest? No animal sacrifices? No atonement of sins?

kek

Now what?

>>1619025
If you're calling me a satan worshiper, you have zero discernment.

If you're saying hell doesn't exist, you're delusional.

>>1619027
How is it wrong, again?

I am so fascinated by this example of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel I can't breathe properly.

>>1619099
>That YHWH broke in 400 BC after your people broke it countless times; He even broke His staff and rod just to show you how serious he was.


You might want to re-read Deuteronomy chapter 4.

Wait, let me rephrase that. You might want to read Deuteronomy, chapter 4.

>With no Temple? No High Priest? No animal sacrifices? No atonement of sins?

Yep. And if you bothered to learn anything, you'd realize none of that is necessary to have a working Covenant. You did know, for instance, that the Jews never gave a Paschal offering in the desert, yes?

>>1619113

Gabbatha is Aramaic. So is Golgotha, which gets a similar treatment. In both cases, John claims them to be Hebrew, thus revealing his ignorance, ignorance that no actual native ought to have.

>>1619027
>Gabbatha

Gabbatha (Aramaic GBTA) is the Aramaic appellation of a place in Jerusalem, designated also under the Greek name of Lithostrotos. It occurs only in John, xix, 13, where the Evangelist states that Pontius Pilate "brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha."

The name "Gabbatha" is certainly an Aramaic word, for by "Hebrew" St. John, like other New Testament writers, denotes the Aramaic language which was spoken commonly at the time in Judea.

>Gee, this kind of shoots the whole "you know more than the authors of the bible about what they said" right out of the water Jew.

It is not a mere translation of "Lithostrotos", which properly means the tessellated or mosaic pavement whereon stood the judgment-seat, but which was extended to the place itself in front of Pilate's praetorium, where that pavement was laid. This is proved by the practice of St. John, who elsewhere gives Aramaic names as distinctly belonging to places, not as mere translations of the Greek. This is proved also by the fact that "Gabbatha" is derived from a root (GB "back", "elevation"); which refers, not to the kind of pavement, but to the "elevation" of the place in question. It thus appears that the two names "Lithostrotos" and "Gabbatha" were due to different characteristics of the spot where Pilate delivered Our Lord to death.

>>1619034
No, it was common for John to conflate Aramaic with Hebrew, since the people spoke mostly Aramaic, and he was writing in Greek.

>>1619089
Yes you are right. There has never ever been any change in what was or is considered the true Christian faith. There never were any debates about the meaning of texts or what specific rituals should be practiced. There aren't even different versions or translations of the bible. It has been the same identical word for word text since forever and ever.

>>1619090
Get thee behind me, satan.

>>1618441

As a man will marry with his wife, so shall God marry iwth his church. The book of Revelation talks about the marriage feast of the Lamb. His "wife" is his church.

>>1619122
And you might want to re-read this.

Zechariah 11:10 And I took my staff, Beauty, and cut it in two, that I might break the covenant which I had made with all the peoples.

You have no covenant, Jew. It's broken. You broke it. You practice lawlessness.

You think you're religious? No, you're not religious at all.

You're just being kept alive, a remnant of you, in order for YHWH to fulfill His promises to Abraham.

You vipers, you synagogue of serpents, He has already told you what's ahead for you.

>>1619125

The name "Gabbatha" is certainly an Aramaic word, for by "Hebrew" St. John, like other New Testament writers, denotes the Aramaic language which was spoken commonly at the time in Judea.

>>1619135
Yup.

None of the things you mention matter.

>>1618901
Dude, what? Thomas is from no earlier than 140

>>1619131

>The name "Gabbatha" is certainly an Aramaic word, for by "Hebrew" St. John, like other New Testament writers, denotes the Aramaic language which was spoken commonly at the time in Judea.

Bullshit. He wrote Hebrew. He meant Hebrew. He simply had no idea of what he was talking about, a la the other things that he writes about and has no clue what he's talking about, such as the necessities of ritual purity, Jewish judicial procedure and definitions of blasphemy, the positions of the Sadducees and Pharisees vis a vis each other, or how he can have Jesus walking around saying things like "I and the Father are one" while still having Mark's gospel saying how the disciples never quite catch on that Jesus is God.

Yeah, a lot of natives of Palestine spoke Aramaic. A lot of people in the Mid-East spoke Aramaic, it wasn't even a particularly "Jewish" language.

>It is not a mere translation of "Lithostrotos", which properly means the tessellated or mosaic pavement whereon stood the judgment-seat, but which was extended to the place itself in front of Pilate's praetorium, where that pavement was laid. This is proved by the practice of St. John, who elsewhere gives Aramaic names as distinctly belonging to places, not as mere translations of the Greek.

That doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that he heard the name of several places. Herodotus gives local names for places, not as translations of Greek from Thrace to India to Egypt, so I guess he knew all of the appropriate local languages, huh?

>>1619146

So, according to you, God is a liar. That's a funny tack to take.

> And I took my staff, Beauty, and cut it in two, that I might break the covenant which I had made with all the peoples.

You do realize that the Mosiatic covenant is not made with "all the peoples", yes?

>You vipers, you synagogue of serpents, He has already told you what's ahead for you.

Yes, that prophets and dreamers would come, bearing signs and wonders, and tell people to stray from God, and DON'T LISTEN TO THEM

>>1619149
It's not about what matters. It's about what people as a matter of FACT practice and identify with as a religion. Those attributes are subject to evolution. Yes there may be a core that hasn't changed. But the graph depicts what HAS changed.

>>1619148

Yeah, like how "Isaiah" in the beginning of Mark isn't "really" Isaiah, and how "That prophecy of being a Nazarene" isn't "really" a prophecy, and how the "Pharisees" forbid the healing on the Sabbath like Sadducees. It's such a shame that the "Holy Spirit" can't inspire people to write clearly, and you need successive waves of interpreters to wring basic accuracy from it.

Forgive me if I think you're full of bullshit, Constantine.

>>1619157
The name Gabbatha comes from a plural form of the word גב (gab), meaning elevation:

Gee, look at that. Hebrew roots.

>>1619157
The name Gabbatha occurs only once in the Bible. It's the name of the location where Pontius Pilate had his judgment seat, also known as Lithostrotos, meaning stone-strewn (John 19:13). Pilate tried to reason with the Jews with the objective to let Jesus go, but was left little choice when they began to evoke Caesar's sovereignty. It was from Gabbatha that Pilate delivered Jesus to be crucified (John 19:16).

I'm fascinated that you're so butthurt about whether this is an Aramaic word, a Hebrew word, or both, that you miss the point this is where the Messiah was condemned to death.

Straining at a gnat, you thus swallow the camel.

>>1619162
A liar? Where in Deut. 4 do you pull that claim out of your ass?

You know the Promise to Abraham precedes the Old Covenant, yes?

And that all you are DUE under the Old Covenant are the curses?

>>1619162
You're hellbound, Schlomo. Repent ye and believe the gospel.

>>1619162
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Revelation 3:9

>>1619192
>Repent ye

If you're going to preach on 4chan at least don't be an insufferable roleplayer about it.

>>1619207
Non sequiter

& Humanities was a mistake.

>>1619190

>I'm fascinated that you're so butthurt about whether this is an Aramaic word, a Hebrew word, or both, that you miss the point this is where the Messiah was condemned to death.

Yeah, maybe because since he fails to meet the Messianic requirements, I don't much care where he got sentenced to death.

I do care however, that the ignorance of a supposed "eyewitness" does a great deal to disprove his actual status of eyewitness.

>>1619191

>>1619191

From the plain text, idiot.

>And on this day the heavens and the earth stand witness against you, that you shall soon be utterly destroyed upon the land that you go over the Jordan to possess, you shall not prolong your days upon it, you shall be destroyed

>And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, you shall be left few in number among the peoples, to where the Lord shall lead you away

>There you shall worship gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which cannot see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell

>But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you shall find Him, if you search after Him with all your heart and all of your spirit

>In your distress, when all these things are come upon you, in the end of days, will you return to the Lord your God, and listen to his voice

>For the Lord your God is a merciful God, and he will not fail you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them

(Small elision about the return, which you don't want to hear)

>And you shall keep his laws, and his commandments, which I command you today, that it will go well with you, and your children after you, that you may prolong your days upon this land, which the Lord your God gives you, for all days.


So, remember how you said upthread that repentence and remission of sin can't happen outside the Land and the temple?>>1619099 >>1619146

You might want to reconsider that stance, since God rather explicitly torpedoes it. And that even the worship of idols doesn't eliminate the Covenant, which is "for all days".

By the way, don't you find it fascinating that the beginning of the "end of days", the Messianic era, is going to happen when the Jews are outside Israel?

>>1619214
To be fair this started as a biblical history thread.

>>1619211
This isn't debate club you fucking mongrel you just post like an autistic dipshit.

>>1619230
But would be against the rules without the '& Humanities', and we could just talk about the history and evolution

>>1619236
Yes the preaching that disrupts these threads is pretty horrible. I don't think we need to throw out humanities. Just make a /rel/ board or enforce that preach posting and theology threads need to be in /x/ where most spiritual bullshit is relegated.

>>1619224
He fulfilled over 350.

The ones He did not fulfill are going to be fulfilled at the Second Coming.

He did not fulfill them then because your people murdered Him and rejected His Kingdom.

Wake up Jew.

>>1619240
The issue goes deeper. With the & Humanities all historical discussion can and will devolve into religious, political or philosophical shitstorm.

Like if I asked you 2 things to not discuss on the internet to avoid complete derail, you probably would answer politics and religion. And yet here we are.

>>1619227
>>But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you shall find Him, if you search after Him with all your heart and all of your spirit

Yes, this is in our future, at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, when you people say "Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the LORD".

He is keeping a remnant of you alive so that you can do that.

Oh, did you think the continual existence of the Jews had something to do with the Jews themselves?

>>1619227
>So, remember how you said upthread that repentence and remission of sin can't happen outside the Land and the temple?

No, I said that could not happen for YOU, JEW, because you neglected the sacrifice of the Messiah.

It happened for me, a Gentile, transformed into a new creation in Christ Jesus, as He shed His blood (without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins) for the ENTIRE WORLD, so that whoever believes in Him will not die but have eternal life.

Your ancestors' sins were merely atoned for by the blood of the animals killed in their stead; Jesus' blood took away the sins of the earth.

So it happened for ME, because I follow Y'shua Moshiac, but not for YOU, who did not.

>>1619227
As to your last point, we are, and have been, in the last days since Pentecost.

After this age comes the Troubles of Jacob, the Second Coming of the Messiah, and then Jesus sits on David's throne.

Too bad you'll be worshiping the antichrist and take the mark of the beast, and go to hell.

So sad, too bad.

Or hey, maybe you're one of the Elect, as you're likely "undefiled with women".

>>1619272
inb4 another 2000 years passes and Christians like you will still be claiming that the second coming is just around the corner

>>1618527
t.
Lv. 1-5: nerd
Lv. 6-10: autist
Lv. 11-15: fedora <<
Lv. 16-20: fedora chieftain
Lv. 21-25: fedora lord
Lv. 26-30: fedora hero
Lv. 31-35: fedora scholar
Lv. 36-40: fedora wizard
Lv. 41-45: fedora legend
Lv. 46-50: Dawkins
Lv. 51-55: Nietzsche
Lv. 56-60: nihilist
Lv. 61-65: satanist
Lv. 66-70: fallen angel
Lv. 71-75: demon
Lv. 76-80: beast
Lv. 81-85: false prophet
Lv. 86-90: antichrist
Lv. 91-95: satan
Lv. 96-100: average Jew

>>1619293
You got in just in time.

It's not around the corner; it's imminent.

>>1619309
Right. See you next decade. I imagine you'll be saying the same thing.

>>1619272
>Too bad you'll be worshiping the antichrist and take the mark of the beast, and go to hell.
You should look up Preterism, which is almost certainly the correct way to read Revelations.

>The "mark" here is no literal mark -- it is a reverse parody of the "seal of God" on the foreheads of the 144,000, and of the allegiance marker specified in Deut. 6:8, "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes." The Jewish disassociation of Christian believers with Judaism removed, in effect, the ability of believers to be protected from Emperor worship, and that (as is amply attested by works like The Christians as the Romans Saw Them) led, in a collectivist society in which deviant behavior was punished with sanctions, to more official sanctions which would include an inability to do the most basic things -- like buy or sell (an economic boycott).
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretsum.php
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/revdate.php

>>1619450
>preterism
I actually believe in this. Didn't know it had a name.

>>1619450
>Preterism, which is almost certainly the correct way to read Revelations.
But even protestant, but preterism was just a theory that the Reformation Era Catholic Church found convenient, so they pumped it as the way of interpreting Revelations.

>>1619484
*Not even

>>1619322
No, we'll never meet unless you repent, and are saved.

>>1619484
What did Luther think about preterism?

>>1619450
Look it up? It's been debunked before you were born.

The mark of the beast is so obviously an implanted biochip with all of your ID and financial data on it that even without a bible you should be able to deduce that's coming soon on the heels of the collapse of fiat currency. Even without John laying it out for you 1900+ years ago.

Revelation 20 [Full Chapter]
[ Satan Bound 1,000 Years ] Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while. ...

Gee, when was satan bound for a thousand years?

When did Jesus rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years?

Preterism is an obnoxious heresy and nothing more.

>>1619511
Who cares what a dead cathollic friar thinks about anything?

File: 1462377942962.png (424KB, 498x735px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 498x735px

>>1619521

>>1619521
Well I do otherwise I wouldn't have asked would I?

>>1619107

And if you think the god who created you in love and who died in love for your salvation would burn you in fire for thinking the "wrong" thoughts or not tithing to the "right" priests then you are worshipping satan whether you know it or not.

>>1619527
I don't think they reformed much at all; they just instituted an order of assassins and attempted to kill every Christian on earth who refused to be a Catholic.

That little anti-semetic bastard is likely in Hades awaiting hellfire.

>>1619561
Since I said nothing of the kind, maybe you should try to pay closer attention to whom you're responding to.

And if you think God's love will prevent Him from doing what He says He will do, you have forgotten the Flood.

>>1619484
So what? It clearly conforms better to the data than the other views.

>>1619570
>anti-semetic
Hello Chaim. Guess who's really burning in hell though? Grandpa Mordechai!

>>1619516
>Gee, when was satan bound for a thousand years?
>When did Jesus rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years?
Nothing about the text suggests a literal throne from Jerusalem, and how would anyone on earth know the specifics about what happens to Satan? Your objections are meaningless.
> 1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time. 4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

>>1619577
>And if you think God's love will prevent Him from doing what He says He will do, you have forgotten the Flood.
They've also forgotten what happened to Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

40 But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"
41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it,
42 saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.
43 "For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,
44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

>>1619272
>Or hey, maybe you're one of the Elect, as you're likely "undefiled with women".

Oh wow, that's some highbrow shit, truly befitting a great savior of the faith. Call him a virgin, that really makes your argument.

>>1619603
Probably. Certainly the author of "On the Jews and Their Lies" is.

Like most Jew hating Catholics, Luther never reconciled the fact that not only is Jesus Jewish, but salvation was initially for the Jew only.

>>1619612
Revelation 20:4 [ The Saints Reign with Christ 1,000 Years ] And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Preterism is as dead as your soul.

>>1619632
Yup. Over a million died when Rome destroyed Israel. The smart ones got out; the smart ones listened to Jesus.

>>1619516
>The mark of the beast is so obviously an implanted biochip with all of your ID and financial data on it that even without a bible you should be able to deduce that's coming soon on the heels of the collapse of fiat currency. Even without John laying it out for you 1900+ years ago.

THE NWO IS COMING, FLOURIDE IN THE WATER, CHEMTRAILS IN THE AIR. HURGABLARGURGALAGA

Idiot.

>>1619639
It's one of the qualifications for being one of the Elect.

It's the only hope I see him having.

>>1619652
Yes, seems fine, seems odd, are you having a stroke? Please sign all your posts the same way.

>>1618441
a man without a wife would've never been allowed to speak in the synagogue back then... The only reason why he's not mentioned, is because it would've been fucking obvious that he had a wife when they tell you all the things he did

>>1619663
You're a paranoid delusional is the point I'm getting at, you fucking worthless lunatic.

>>1619673

You seem like a fine fellow yourself.

>>1619655
Yes, totally, you surely weren't descending into the classic insult refuge of the pathetic.

>>1618904
>Studying the koran is a secular endeavor but studying the bible is not

>>1619643
You seemingly can't reconcile the fact that God is prescient I knew from eternity that the Jews would side with their father spiritual father, Satan, and therefore salvation was always meant for the gentiles.

>21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

>24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

>“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”[e]
>28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”[f] 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

>>1619678
As usual, both are possible.

Revelation 14:4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

>>1619767
I'm glad I made myself clear.

>>1619780
Why would you think I think the same as Luther?

Of course God has no Plan B.

>>1619647
Yes, you've quoted from the same passage that I just had. Again, nothing about the text suggests that it's to take place on Earth.

>>1619780
That's a verse to show muslims, not Christians. We don't have a dog in the Ishmael v Isaac fight.

>>1619804
Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Where is that throne?

Zechariah 14:4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south.

Here is Jesus' Second Coming, onto the earth. On the Mount of Olives.

Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.

And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

>>1619799
Just checking, so you really not see the obvious circular reasoning? That you have to believe in the bible to study the bible and anyone who doesn't can't study it properly? I think you're playing dense desu but who knows maybe you're actually a fucking idiot.

>>1618670
sdas

>>1619860
You have to have the Holy Spirit explaining the bible to you, or you will never understand it.

Anyone can read and understand the quran; it is an unholy text, and we are all sinners.

>>1619883
Right ok so actually stupid, thanks.

>>1619890
No, they have to be spiritually discerned.

>>1619883
>the religious text that I believe in can only be interpreted by believers
>the religious text i do not believe in can be interpreted by anyone
nice bias

>>1619902
Yes, that's correct, as they are diametrically opposed to each other, and mutually exclusive.

They cannot both be right. (They can both be wrong, logically, but they cannot both be holy).

>>1619890
I think it's pretty fucking stupid to end up in a pitch black lake of fire forever when a pardon is yours for the asking, but that's just your pride fucking you up, as usual.

>>1619909
>(They can both be wrong, logically, but they cannot both be holy).

Yes they can, it would just require that some of their claims be false. For instance if the universe were pantheistic, they'd both be holy by default, or if they were both just getting fragmentary glimpses of some sort of divine truth they could both be holy.

>>1619915
It's pretty fucking stupid to waste your life ignoring your dharma and being cursed to a lower form in the next life.

>>1619923
Pantheism does not lead to holiness; pigs would be holy. Worms would be holy. Demons would be holy.

Only the one true God is holy, and only the 66 books of the bible are holy, inspired by God Himself, telling the end from the beginning as only He can.

>>1619923
I think it's far more likely that you're just a fool who can't tell the difference between God and a psychotic murderous pedophile.

>>1619570
*tips tinfoil*

>>1619932
>Pantheism does not lead to holiness

Literally everything would be holy and every act a sacrament.

>pigs would be holy. Worms would be holy.

What's wrong with pigs? Worms are absolutely essential to the function of the ecosystem, so them being holy is fitting.

>Demons would be holy.

They don't exist.

>Only the one true God is holy,

Doesn't exist. Stop wasting your life.

>, and only the 66 books of the bible are holy, inspired by God Himself

Didn't happen.

>telling the end from the beginning as only He can.

You mean contradictory and full of blatant falsehoods?

>>1619932
/thread

Did Jesus exist as portrayed in the scriptures?

>>1619940
*tips fedora*
>>1619949
Absolutely

>>1619952
>*tips fedora*

Ok, but calling foul when you've spent a good chunk of this thread acting like a fedora tipper in regards to another religion is pretty poor form, you stupid fuck.

>>1618654
Who is "they?"

Uh, I may be wrong, but didn't the woman who proposed this theory in the first place admit it was likely a forgery?

>>1618441
The Church is His Bride, the Mass is His Wedding Feast.

So yes.